Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

OXFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

OXFORDSHIRE AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD BILL [Lords]

UNITED KINGDOM OIL PIPELINES BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Consultants

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will amend the conditions of contracts for consultants in the National Health Service to minimise the number of occasions and situations where they may be employed on part-time and maximum part-time contracts.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): No, Sir. Any change in the conditions governing consultant contracts would be a matter for negotiation between my Department and the representatives of the medical and dental professions.

Mr. Huckfield: Is the Under-Secretary not aware that in every case in which a part-time or maximum part-time consultant is appointed, National Health Service queues increase? Is he further aware that this means that more National Health Service patients are tempted to go private, which means that the consultants will come forward and ask for even more private practice? Is he not aware that by continuing with consultant appointments on these terms he is only encouraging the

gradual breakdown of the National Health Service? Will he seriously re-examine this problem?

Mr. Alison: I cannot accept the interpretation that the hon. Gentleman has put upon these realities. The truth is that the consultant on a maximum part-time basis is expected to devote substantially the whole of his time to the National Health Service and to give it priority on all occasions.

Dr. Summer skill: Would the Under-Secretary like to make a statement on the Government's policy about consultants who practise within the National Health Service and at the same time have private beds? Is the policy to increase or decrease this practice, or have the Government no policy at all?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Lady knows that a maximum part-time consultant can allocate part of his time to the pursuit of private practice. The question how many consultants should be taken on, whole-time or maximum part-time, is one for boards to decide on their own initiative.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many consultants in the National Health Service are now employed on a full-time basis.

Mr. Alison: The provisional figure for 30th September, 1971, is 3,576 in England and Wales.

Mr. Mitchell: Will the Minister take urgent steps to increase the number? Waiting lists are getting longer and patients who go to consultants in a private capacity often get quicker access to National Health Service beds than those who go in a health service capacity.

Mr. Alison: I do not believe that the opportunity for maximum part-time service has a bearing upon the length of waiting lists or their increase or decrease, except perhaps exceedingly marginally. [Interruption.] The hon. Member will be glad to know, since I take it that this is his point of view, that the number of whole-time consultants is increasing more rapidly than the total numbers.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Did my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary say that the


latest figures he had were up to last September?

Mr. Alison: The latest figures I quoted were for 30th September, 1971. I have more fully verified figures for the period ended 30th September, 1970, than for the period ended 30th September, 1971.

Mr. Bob Brown: Is it not almost criminally wrong that women who are almost demented with the fear of cancer of the womb should be crowded into a gynaecological clinic awaiting the arrival of the consultant who, at the time he should be at the clinic, is engaged in private practice in his own home on the other side of town? Does not the Undersecretary think it high time that he insisted that consultants should be at clinics on time?

Mr. Alison: If consultants are on maximum part-time they are expected to devote substantially the whole of their time to National Health Service patients and to give them priority on all occasions.

Pensions

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has made of the income distributional effects in retirement which would be produced for his strategy for pensions proposals.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): None, Sir, because of the many uncertain factors involved.

Mr. Meacher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Government's pension proposals will still leave roughly three million people in poverty? Is he further aware that a quarter of the men and four-fifths of the women will still be unable, under the State reserve scheme, even after a full working-life contribution, to earn a pension above the State poverty line? Will he not therefore withdraw these proposals before he forces poverty on 6 per cent. of the population 20 years into the next century?

Mr. Dean: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's figures at all. These proposals will substantially improve the retirement arrangements for everyone.

Mr. McCrindle: Would my hon. Friend not agree that under these proposals every person will eventually be entitled to two pension incomes as of right? Is that not likely to result in a considerable reduction in the number of people forced to go on to supplementary benefits?

Mr. Dean: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he is right. The two-pension policy is of major significance for improving provision for retirement.

Mr. O'Malley: Is the hon. Gentleman serious in suggesting that his Department has made no estimate of the effects of the pension proposals for the rest of this century and the beginning of the next? If he denies the figures quoted by my hon. Friend, will he say what is his Department's estimate of the number of people who will still be dependent on means-tested benefits by the end of the century?

Mr. Dean: I could not answer the question because there are so many uncertain factors involved—for example, how successful this Government will continue to be in improving the rate of pension through annual reviews and how rapidly occupational pension schemes will be extended. These are two of the factors of which no accurate calculation can be made at this point.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultations he proposes to have with organisations representing pensioners before pensions are increased in the autumn.

Mr. Dean: My right hon. Friend has already announced our proposals for increasing pensions.—[Vol. 833, c. 1501–18.]

Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all old-age pensioners' associations have expressed disappointment, and some of them anger, at the pension provision for them in the last Budget? Does he agree that when pensioners receive their increase in October its value will have been eroded? Will he consider giving the pension then the same purchasing power as the increased pension would have had when the announcement was made?

Mr. Dean: The pension will not have been eroded by the time it comes into


operation in October. There will be a real improvement in its value, on the best estimate we can make of what will happen to prices. Above all, pensioners now have the assurance that their pensions will be increased each year and that they will not have to wait two or three years as in the past.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my hon. Friend not attach undue weight to the crocodile tears shed by Labour Members about the decline in pension values when they have contributed so much to that decline by supporting inflationary wage settlements in sectors with which they are concerned?

Mr. Dean: I agree with what my hon. Friend says. Labour hon. Members' criticisms would be more convincing if they had been able to do half as much as this Government have done for pensioners in the past two years.

Mr. Heffer: It is no argument to talk about what previous Governments have or have not done. [Interruption.] I can say that, because I was one of those who argued throughout the six years of the Labour Government that we were not doing enough to help the pensioners. The pensioners are not interested in these party arguments. Is it not clear to the Minister that what is being done is not enough to assist the pensioners? They feel very humiliated. They have to rely on bus passes and things like that instead of getting a decent pension to meet all their costs.

Mr. Dean: I agree that what matters is what is being done for pensioners now, but when we are criticised we are entitled to point out the record and the facts.

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from organisations concerned with retirement pensioners as a result of the Budget proposals on pensions.

Mr. Dean: Six letters expressing some disappointment at our proposals.

Mr. Ewing: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the things that disillusioned pensioners was the fact that so much was given to people with higher incomes, those above £5,000 a year,

whereas a miserable pittance of 75p was given to the single pensioner? That has to keep pensioners going until the autumn of 1973. If the pension is not eroded by the autumn of this year, it certainly will be by the time of the next increase, and we have still not tackled the problem of how pensioners are to survive once we go into Europe, if we do.

Mr. Dean: There is a firm commitment by the Government that any increase in prices which may occur because of entry into Europe will be taken into account in the reviews of pensions. The hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. Tax reductions leave a little more of people's own money in their own pockets, whereas pension increases must be paid for by the contributions of the working population.

South Ockendon Mental Hospital

Mrs. Barbara Castle: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will now institute a Government inquiry into the events surrounding the death of a patient in South Ockenden Mental Hospital.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): The death mentioned in recent Press reports occurred early in 1969, and has already been very fully investigated by the police. However, following the death of a patient earlier this year, on whom an inquest is expected to be held shortly, some specific complaints about nursing standards were made by a former member of the staff. The hospital management committee has now set up an inquiry into these complaints and I will inform the right hon. Lady of the outcome.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to leave the matter there? Is he not aware that the killer of Robert Robertson has still not been found, that there were several unsatisfactory features about the trial of David Burles, who was most unfairly treated before being found not guilty, that earlier there had been a case of severe injury through beating without a charge having been brought and that there has been this curious coincidence of a subsequent death at the hospital?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of all these disturbing


features, a number of questions have been put to the police by the organisation A.E.G.I.S. but have never been answered? Will he please reconsider the need for an inquiry, and may I assure him that if there is an inquiry there are former and present charge nurses at the hospital who will be willing to give evidence?

Sir K. Joseph: The first two cases to which the right hon. Lady refers and on which she lays great emphasis occurred respectively four and three years ago. The second case, the death, was subject to a police inquiry and, on the repeated application of A.E.G.I.S. renewed police inquiries were reopened last year and have just been concluded.
None of those inquiries shows any case for a further inquiry. The acquittal of the accused fellow patient of the deceased was, as far as I am aware, not on the ground whether he was the killer but, I understand, on the ground that he was not fit to plead. There is no evidence known to me to justify reopening, on the ground that further evidence would now be made available, these long-passed episodes.
The fact is, however, that, regrettably, a further death in this hospital occurred earlier this year, and this is now the subject of an inquest and is therefore sub judice. This has caused the management committee, with my entire approval, to set up a new inquiry and I shall, of course, be very watchful so that, if it discloses any need for a further inquiry in the light of the complaints made by a recently engaged nurse in the hospital, I can take any necessary action.

Mr. Delargy: Although this hospital is in my constituency, no notice was given to me about this Question, which was extremely discourteous. It might also explain why the name of the place as it appears in the Question on the Order Paper is wrongly spelt.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that members of the staff have nothing to fear from an inquiry and that they want to know when all this will end? Is he aware that there have been several inquiries into these matters; that two official police investigations have been conducted in the last three years; and that inquiries have been made by the regional hospital board, the hospital in-

quiry service and by the then Department of Health and Social Security?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this prolonged investigation, lasting over three years, is bound to cause grave disquiet not only among the staff, who are doing an extremely difficult job in a worthwhile manner, but among the relatives of patients in the hospital?

Sir K. Joseph: I am particularly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. I am sure that my predecessor was right to take into account in reaching his decision the need not to over-investigate any particular hospital—a hospital in which it was found that, despite the over-crowding and lack of staff, there were a number of excellent features and that the staff were vigorous and conscientious in dealing with the problems which they faced.

Mr. Driberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider with his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who knows all about it, the case of a constituent of mine, John Meter, a 16-year-old autistic boy who should not be in this hospital at all? While sharing fully what my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) says about the dedication of the staff, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there are far too few of them to deal with this sort of case?
Is he aware that the condition of this boy is deteriorating rapidly and that day after day his mother finds him lying naked in his own filth on the floor of a locked side room? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this hospital is quite unsuitable for autistic children because there is not enough staff to deal with them?

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has, of course, told me about this case and about the hon. Gentleman's concern for this patient, who is, I understand, the subject not of any ill-treatment but of lack of staff, something from which the whole of the service is suffering. Despite the Government's increased injection of resources, the fact remains that it will be some years before we are able to provide enough facilities and staff to treat properly all the patients in public care.

Abortion

Mr. Money: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied that the terms of the Abortion Act, 1967, legalising abortion only if a continued pregnancy would endanger a woman's life or harm her physical or mental condition or that of her existing children to a greater extent than if there were an abortion, are being generally carried out; and if he will make a statement.

Sir K. Joseph: The Government look for an answer to this Question from the Lane Committee on the Working of the Abortion Act whose report we expect in the first part of next year.

Mr. Money: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, while awaiting the Lane Report, the deep public concern that exists within the lay and medical services over this matter, and will he pay particular regard to the views expressed by the working party of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists about the urgent need for a review?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, and I am always ready to consider evidence and to invite people to put evidence before the Lane Committee. However, I can do no more than be very careful about approvals given to approved private places.

Mr. David Steel: May we be assured that, pending the publication of the Lane Report, to which we look forward with considerable interest, the right hon. Gentleman will extend his control over private clinics and will in particular pursue those which, having been put out of business in Langham Street, are apparently continuing their business elsewhere?

Sir K. Joseph: I am keeping an extremely watchful eye on any private clinics about which allegations are made, but I have no reason to fear that my observations are inadequate at the moment.

Mr. Crawshaw: Irrespective of whether the terms of the Act should be restricted or extended, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that many women in some parts of the country, particularly in the Liverpool area, even

when they come within the terms of the Act, are unable to get bed facilities in their areas and have to travel to London? Will he find out why facilities are not available in these areas?

Sir K. Joseph: I must await the Lane Committee and its judgment on the scale of facilities available. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see that the points which he makes are put to the Lane Committee.

Prescription Charges (Exemptions)

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will amend the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Regulations so as to grant a one-year exemption from prescription charges to any woman whose child is either stillborn or dies within the first year of birth.

Mr. Alison: No, Sir. Much as I sympathise with these mothers, the existing arrangements already ensure that exemption is available for anyone who cannot afford to pay the charge for any prescriptions she may need.

Mr. Steel: Will the hon. Gentleman look at this matter more sympathetically? Is he aware that considerable distress can be caused to a woman who, having lost a child, must hand back her exemption certificate, although she may be in need of prescriptions which she might not have needed had the unhappy incident of losing the child not occurred? Is he aware that the dental regulations take no account of the possible death of the child but allow exemption for a full year after delivery, whether or not the child survives?

Mr. Alison: Mothers who undergo this tragic experience are not very likely to need considerable medicament following the still-birth or loss of a child. As I told the hon. Gentleman, there are wide-ranging exemptions for those for whom any financial hardship arises from the loss of prescription rights through the stillbirth or loss of a child.

Dental Services

Mr. Leonard: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, following recent discussions with the General Dental Services Committee, he will now take steps to initiate a 24-hour, 365 days


a year, emergency dental practitioner service.

Sir K. Joseph: I recently met representatives of the British Dental Association and agreed with them to set up a joint working party to consider how best within available resources to secure the long-term development and improvement of the dental services available under the National Health Service. The emergency services will be amongst the matters considered by the working party.

Mr. Leonard: All hon. Members will be very glad to hear that statement. I am sure that the dental profession is very anxious indeed that there should be the fastest possible move towards the provision of this service, which will do a great deal to save much hardship and suffering throughout the country.

Retirement Pensions (Representations)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many letters and deputations he has received from retirement pensioners and their associations.

Mr. Dean: About 3,300 letters and three deputations in the last six months.

Mr. Skinner: Now that the Budget euphoria has died down, is the Undersecretary aware that it will do little or nothing to help the old-age pensioner to exist? [An Hon. Member: "Nonsense."] When he next replies to these letters, perhaps he could explain to a few of these people how a miserly 75 percent.—75p—increase—[Interruption.]—I nearly slipped up then—will enable them to buy a cheap mink coat for the winter?

Mr. Dean: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to be fair—[Laughter.]—I will amend that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman wants to be fair. There was a substantial increase last September. The annual review comes into operation for the first time this year and will provide another substantial increase, which will more than cater for the increase in prices.

Mr. Redmond: Has my hon. Friend seen the recent report of the Institute of Fiscal Studies, which shows that people with the lowest incomes are 28 per cent. better off under the present Government than they were under the previous Government, and is he aware that those

figures were produced before the Budget and not after it?

Mr. Dean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of those impressive figures.

Mr. O'Malley: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, under the present system of paying pensions, and even when pensioners receive their further increase six months in the future, the position is by no means satisfactory? I should have thought that that was accepted on both sides of the House. In the financial circumstances in which the Government find themselves this year, does not the hon. Gentleman consider that the Chancellor should, even now, give further help to pensioners by increasing the Exchequer supplement so that there could be a very substantial increase at a time when the Government could give it if they wanted to?

Mr. Dean: We all want to continue to improve the pensioner's financial position, and we shall continue to do so. But the fact of the matter is that since last September, and taking into account the new review that comes into operation in October, about an additional £1,000 million will be made available to pensioners and other beneficiaries, and they now have the absolute assurance that each autumn there will be an improvement in the rate of pension at least to take account of the rise in prices.

Cigarette Smoking and Health

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Sir G. Nabarro: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is now in a position to make his announcement on further action with regard to cigarette smoking and heath

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a grave misprint in the Question. The last three words should be "smoking and health", not "smoking and heath"—because the Prime Minister is a non-smoker.

Sir K. Joseph: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sets an admirable example on the subject of smoking.
In answer to the Question: Not yet, Sir.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend hurry up in this matter? Does he recall that last year, when he preferred his voluntary arrangements to my legislative intentions and he frustrated the Cigarettes (Health Hazards) Bill, he estimated that cigarette smoking would fall dramatically, instead of which it fell by 10 per cent. for a very short period and has now resumed its former force? Will he take early steps to try to deal with this dramatic and difficult situation?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not think that I ever committed myself to any expectation that there would be a dramatic and early fall in cigarette smoking. I wish that I thought the problem was that easy to solve. But certainly the Government are engaged in examining the evidence as to what should next be done, and I shall not indulge in any unnecessary delay.

Family Income Supplement

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the latest estimate of the rate of take-up for the family income supplement.

Sir K. Joseph: At the end of March, about 75 per cent. of those entitled to £2 or more were in receipt of the benefit, 50 per cent. of those entitled to between £1 and £2 and 30 per cent, of those entitled to under £1. So the overall rate of take-up was about half. Detailed figures for April are not yet available, but I estimate that the overall rate of take-up remains the same.

Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that it is now almost a year since the Government introduced what many of us regard as a degrading method of alleviating family poverty? Do not these figures make it clear that it has been an absolute failure and that the Government would have done far better to increase family allowances and to make them payable for the first child?

Sir K. Joseph: If we had followed that course, the families who are now benefit-ting, those with one child, would probably not yet be receiving any improved benefits. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to be fair. How can he regard this as a failure when 75 per cent. of those entitled to more than £2 are receiving not only that benefit but a whole range of other benefits automatic-

ally, on the passport system? This whole family income supplement was presented as an immediate first aid and is now possibly likely, subject to the opinion of the House and decision of the Government, to be overtaken by the tax credit scheme which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor proposed in his Budget.

Dame Irene Ward: Would my right hon. Friend suggest to the Opposition that all these Questions are due to jealousy and because they had not got the guts to do what the present Government have done, for which we are all very grateful?

Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It would be slightly more convincing if the Opposition had shown any capacity to match their deeds to their words.

Mr. James Hamilton: Would the right hon. Gentleman disregard what was said by the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward)?

Dame Irene Ward: He will not.

Mr. Hamilton: It is not a case of jealousy but one of disillusionment, particularly in Scotland, where we have heavy unemployment. Many of the people there are not accepting or not applying for family income supplement because they feel that they have been misinformed. Will the right hon. Gentleman now keep his election pledge and give an increased family allowance, as his party, prior to the General Election, said they would do?

Sir K. Joseph: We have several times debated the reasons why the Government prefered this method coupled with the sharp raising, on two separate occasions, of the tax threshold, which had been left so calamitously low under the previous Labour Government, to any increase in family allowances.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the latest figure for successful applications for family income supplement in the Yorkshire and Humberside departmental region.

Mr. Dean: About 11,000, excluding second claims from families whose first awards have come to an end.

Mr. Wainwright: Throughout the Yorkshire and Humberside region the average wage is far lower than in the rest of the country. Is the Under-Secretary not surprised that the figure is only 11,000? What is he doing to see that everyone who qualifies for the family income supplement applies for it? Can he say why the workers on short time at the G.E.C. works at Swinton, near Mexborough, have even been refused an application form for family income supplement, although their wages are below £12 a week?

Mr. Dean: I will look at the last point, but I cannot give an answer off the cuff. The figures which I gave referred to the period before the uprating of the family income supplement and we have already had a substantial number of new claims since the beginning of this month, so that the figure will go up. But about 30 per cent. of the awards in the region are to one-parent families, and this is a considerable help to them. The average weekly payment in the region at the end of March was £1·62, again a substantial help to those who qualify.

Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State's acclaimed figure of 75 per cent. take-up applies to only about 30,000 families, which is an extremely small number. Increase in the take-up of family income supplement has virtually stopped and virtually none of those families has been brought up to the State poverty line.

Mr. Dean: The take-up figures for those receiving the larger amounts, and therefore those in greatest need, is about 75 per cent., which is a very good figure. We are hoping to improve it all the time. Equally, the up rating of the F.I.S. by £1 which came into operation at the beginning of this month is bringing more people in, but we are having a further publicity campaign to ensure that all those who are eligible for the allowance get it.

Family Planning

Sir D. Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has yet completed his review of family planning services; what further improvements he proposes to introduce; and whether he will make a statement.

Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. I shall make a statement when my review is complete.

Sir D. Renton: In further considering this matter, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this year important bodies of medical opinion have recommended that there should be a fully comprehensive family planning service within the Health Service Will he say now, if he can, whether he accepts the recommendations of the Todd Committee on medical education?

Sir K. Joseph: I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that the Government will be taking into account in their review the veritable avalanche of advice about this subject, descending upon Ministers from all sorts of highly reputable bodies, including the recommendations of the Todd Committee.

Dr. Stuttaford: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a recent survey shows that even in those areas traditionally thought to be opposed to family planning over 65 per cent. of Conservative voters favour the prescription of the pill under the National Health Service?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not wish to be incautious, but I am not conscious of any grave political constraint upon the expansion of Government activity in this matter, provided that it can be addressed to those areas where it is most needed.

Mrs. Castle: Will not the right hon. Gentleman accept that this is a very urgent matter and that, therefore, his review should be treated with high priority so that the House can have an early discussion on this matter, which is of not only national but global importance?

Sir K. Joseph: By her last words, the right hon. Lady has prevented me from giving a brief, "Yes, Sir", in reply to a supplementary question. I remind the House that I am not responsible for population policy and that such questions are for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—[Laughter.] I am simply responsible for the health and social services aspects of this question.

Invalid Vehicles (Grants)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received concerning the reduction in grants to drivers of invalid vehicles; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Alison: None, Sir. The grants payable to individual drivers of invalid vehicles have not, in general, been reduced.

Mr. Dempsey: Is it not the case that there are individuals who will suffer substantial reductions? I have a Dunkirk veteran in my constituency who lost both his legs and his net allowance will be reduced by £35. Where he receives the £5 increase, he loses the hand-controls benefit. When these people reach retirement age they can lose the car altogether. Is this not a cheap, mean and miserable way to treat people who have served their country and sacrificed themselves for it so faithfully in past years?

Mr. Alison: I should want to look at the individual case which the hon. Member quoted. The figure of £35 may arise as a result of their no longer being an obligation to provide a garage, but I would like to look at the particular case the hon. Member mentioned.

Medical Act, 1956

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from the General Medical Council asking for amendments of the Medical Act, 1956; and if he will make a statement.

Sir K. Joseph: The General Medical Council and the other organisations represented on the Brynmor Jones Working Party on the composition of the General Medical Council have indicated their acceptance of the Working Party's report. The Government will seek a convenient early opportunity to introduce the legislation to effect the necessary constitutional changes.

Dr. Summerskill: Is it not a fact that the General Medical Council requires the amendment of the Act in order to secure a striking off from the register of any doctor who does not pay the annual £5 retention fee? Eight thousand doctors have already refused to pay the fee. The B.M.A. is opposed to it. If this is carried through, it will have serious consequences for the medical profession.

Sir K. Joseph: Without accepting the allegations in the hon. Lady's supplementary question, I must ask her to await the legislation, the main purpose of which

is to alter—to the prescription recommended by the Brynmor Jones working party and accepted by the representative bodies involved in it—the balance of membership of the General Medical Council.

Medical Identity Cards

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he hopes to complete his discussions on the introduction of a medical identity card, giving details of the carrier's blood group, allergies to penicillin and steroid therapy, history of coronary disorder and diabetes, as a means of increasing the number of organs available for transplant.

Mr. Alison: Present consideration of such cards has no bearing on the question of the supply of organs for transplantation. This, as the hon. Member knows, is being pursued by other means.

Mr. Dalyell: As the provision of medical identity cards probably represents the lowest common denominator of agreement among those who would like to change the law on transplants, could not this be considered fairly quickly? On the Minister's reply, both the donor and recipient would benefit from such a provision.

Mr. Alison: There is already a good deal of difficulty in reaching agreement professionally about what the medical identity cards at present on trial should contain. Arguments whether information about transplantation should be included in such cards in the future would make it even more difficult to reach agreement in the profession.

Contraceptive Pills

Mr. David Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce legislation to prohibit general practitioners operating within the National Health Service from charging for the issuing of prescriptions for contraceptive pills.

Sir K. Joseph: I am not yet ready to add to my reply to the hon. Member on 22nd February.—[Vol. 831, c. 245.]

Mr. Clark: It is ridiculous that when people for financial, moral and other reasons wish to make use of the contraceptive that not only do they have to pay the prescription charge but in many


cases doctors actually charge for writing out the prescription. Is this not a ridiculous situation when there is a great deal of discussion about population policy and so on?

Sir K. Joseph: This is one of the facts of the position which I am taking into account in the present review.

Lead Compounds (Health Hazards)

Mr. Walter Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he intends to hold the conference on the health hazards of lead compounds in engine exhausts.

Mr. Alison: The subject was considered at a conference on "Lead in the Environment" held in January by the Institute of Petroleum, the Chemical Society and the British Occupational Hygiene Society and we see little point in duplicating these discussions.

Mr. Johnson: With the ever-increasing number of cars on the roads this is becoming a very serious problem. The lead compounds emitted by engine exhausts are particularly harmful to children. Will the Under-Secretary tell the oil companies that they should reduce the level of lead additives in petrol to assist the situation?

Mr. Alison: The last part of the question falls within the ambit of the Department of the Environment, but the hon. Member can rest assured that we are keeping a hawk-like eye upon the level of likely pollution in the environment arising from lead discharge.

Attendance Allowance

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now give consideration to providing further assistance to those families which contain two or more persons suffering disability, particularly when these cases, whilst involving considerable hardship, do not qualify for the constant attendance allowance.

Sir K. Joseph: I have recently announced our proposals for the extension of attendance allowance to bring in about 250,000 more disabled people, which

should help many of the people whom the hon. Member has in mind.—[Vol. 833, c. 1501–18.]

Mr. Hardy: While the new modified allowance is very welcome and maybe most relevant in such cases, will the right hon. Gentleman consider revising the arrangements to allow a greater and perhaps earlier generosity when applications are received from persons living in a household in which there may be two or more individuals who are disabled? Is he aware that I have written about such a case in my constituency?

Sir K. Joseph: I am aware of the constituency case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and I believe that the two cases concerned in the same household are subject to review by the Attendance Allowance Board.

Earnings Rule

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will introduce legislation to apply the earnings rule to the pensions of former Prime Ministers.

Mr. Dean: No, Sir. The earnings rule for which my right hon. Friend is responsible applies only to national insurance retirement pensions and is the same for former Prime Ministers as for anyone else.

Mr. Lewis: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that old-age pensioners who work 40 years before they receive a pension and who contribute to their pension feel it rather unfair that they should have the earnings rule applied to them, whereas certain people who have a good salary, for many years in some instances, can go on to a non-contributory pension of £4,000 or £5,000 a year without the earnings rule being applied to them? Old-age pensioners feel that there is one rule for the rich and another for the poor.

Mr. Dean: The earnings rule has never applied to occupational pensions, which are being received by a very large number of people. It was to meet the point the hon. Gentleman made that the Government last year increased the amount that could be earned under the State scheme by no less than £2 a week.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT POMPIDOU (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his meeting with President Pompidou on 18th and 19th March.

Mr. Redmond: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with M. Pompidou.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent talks with President Pompidou.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): My talks with President Pompidou covered a broad range of subjects, including the European Community, European security and international monetary and economic questions.

Mr. Huckfield: Can the Prime Minister give a categorical assurance that there was no discussion of any new Anglo-French defence agreement, particularly involving nuclear weapons?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I told the House that when I answered a supplementary question about the matter just before Easter. As I have told the House before, both President Pompidou and I take the view that this is not the time for such discussions.

Mr. Redmond: Whatever views we may have on the subject of referenda, or may have had in the past, does my right hon. Friend agree that the principal argument being used in the House against membership of the Common Market is that there is a loss of sovereignty? Did President Pompidou therefore explain how the French people, who have been in the Common Market from the beginning, have the sovereignty with which to hold a referendum, or does it mean that the arguments about sovereignty are grossly exaggerated?

The Prime Minister: The procedure for holding a referendum forms part of the present French constitution. But when France went into the Common Market no referendum was held.

Mr. Skinner: When next the Prime Minister has a chance to speak to President Pompidou, would not it be reasonable for him to take along his right hon.

Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)—

Hon. Members: And leave him.

Hon. Members: Take Roy as well.

Mr. Skinner: I do not know about that. Would not it be reasonable for the Prime Minister to take his right hon. Friend to see to it that the country and his party's interests are not betrayed?

The Prime Minister: These discussions are held between Heads of Government.

Mr. Marten: Was there any discussion between my right hon. Friend and President Pompidou on the question of a directly-elected European Parliament? The countries of the Six do not seem to speak with one voice on this matter.

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, each country of the Six is perfectly entitled to have its own voice of the matter until there has been a discussion and they have reached agreement. This was one of matters which I discussed with President Pompidou in the general context of the development of the European Parliament. I think that he shares my view, which is that what is first needed is a study of the future development of the European Parliament to provide a basis on which we can consider such questions.

Mr. Thorpe: With particular reference to the referendum, can the Prime Minister say whether at that meeting or subsequently President Pompidou has expressed surprise or pleasure about the fact that his closest political imitators in this country are the Labour Shadow Cabinet?

The Prime Minister: It would not have been possible for him to do that at the time of the meeting, because that was not then the case.

Mr. Shore: When the President of France told the Prime Minister about his forthcoming referendum, did the Prime Minister take the opportunity of explaining to President Pompidou how he intended to obtain the full-hearted consent of the British people, which he is pledged to obtain before entry?

The Prime Minister: President Pompidou has previously congratulated me on


the remarkable majority of 112 with which Parliament endorsed the European policy last autumn.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (SPEECH)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for the Environment at Worcester on Friday, 17th March, on housing matters represents Government policy.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Sir G. Nabarro: While strongly endorsing the general principles of the speech, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that during it the Secretary of State referred to the B.B.C. television programme as incredibly biased and then went on to say that the B.B.C. was not so much interested in social reform and justice as it was in promoting socialism? As the Prime Minister has confirmed that he agrees with the Secretary of State's speech on that occasion, will he please deal properly with the B.B.C. and reform its arrangements to rid us of this incredible bias?

The Prime Minister: It is a responsibility laid by the B.B.C. Charter upon the Chairman and Governors to ensure that there is no bias in the B.B.C.'s programmes. Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I deeply regret it when bias occurs, but it is the B.B.C.'s responsibility to put its own house in order.

Mr. Frank Allaun: But did not the Secretary of State in that speech in Worcester criticise two Labour Members of Parliament for causing anxiety about the doubling of rents, although the Department itself has admitted in its own document that this is its estimate of the average for each of the ten regions of the country in 1976? Has not the Association of Municipal Corporations, Conservative-controlled as it is, again asked the Government for five major modifications of this outrageous Bill?

The Prime Minister: What my right hon. Friend was criticising was the fact that neither he nor a spokesman of the Department was allowed on the programme on the ground that no politicians

were taking part in it but that he then found that two Members from the Opposition were taking part. That is a perfectly sound matter for criticism, in my view. As far as the other aspects of the programme are concerned, it should be pointed out that 1,750,000 local authority tenants and 750,000 private tenants for the first time will be eligible for rent rebates. In other words, 2,500,000 people will thereby pay less.

Oral Answers to Questions — BEXLEY AND SIDCUP

Mr. John D. Grant: asked the Prime Minister if he will now pay official visits to Bexley and Sidcup.

The Prime Minister: I shall be attending the civic reception which is being given by the Mayor of the London Borough of Bexley on Friday.

Mr. Grant: Does the Prime Minister realise that I am trying to help him by encouraging him to go there more often, although there seem to be local Tories who do not want him to go there? [Interruption.] Does he recall the words of the old song, even if he does not subscribe to them—[Interruption.]—"Everybody loves a dame"? Is not he aware—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the supplementary question.

Mr. Grant: I had expected the right hon. Gentleman to conduct the choir. Is he aware that the whole nation is engrossed in waiting for him to declare his intentions towards the right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) so that she may know his intentions?

The Prime Minister: In music hall terms, the hon. Gentleman has got the bird.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that all other new applicants for entry into the European Economic Community are to hold referenda on the matter, and that France has now made a similar decision, he will now reconsider


this method of consulting the British people on this issue.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the Prime Minister realise that the answer will not be regarded by many of us on this side of the House as discouraging? Does not he agree with a former Leader of the Labour Party that the referendum is the instrument of dictators, demagogues and reactionaries? Nevertheless, will he give an undertaking that, before this critical decision is taken on British entry into the E.E.C., he will implement his election promise to take us into Europe not only with the full consent of Parliament but with the full consent of the British people as a whole and therefore hold a general election on the matter? The right hon. Gentleman made a distinction between the full consent of Parliament and the full consent of the British people as a whole.

The Prime Minister: I have never made that distinction and the hon. Gentleman cannot point to any speech in which I made it. I have, in fact, stated the reverse. I have always said that our constitutional process is carried out through Parliament and by that means alone. That is the view to which I have always adhered.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the first half of his remarks. I thought that he would be sympathetic to my answer because, on 27th March, he said in the House to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Dutchy of Lancaster:
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the last Labour Party conference came out decisively against a referendum and that it is the commonly accepted view on this side of the House that we should obey party conference decision?"—[Official Report, 27th March, 1972; Vol. 834, c. 22.]

Mr. Blaker: Should not the advocates of a referendum on the Common Market, if they are to be logical and consistent, be proposing, first, that we should have a referendum on the question whether we should make such a substantial change in our constitutional practice?

The Prime Minister: I do not believe that even that would be a suitable subject for a referendum.

Mr. John Mendelson: Will the Prime Minister at least address himself to the traditional process of consulting the people in a General Election, bearing in mind that the conditions negotiated for entry could not have been known to the electorate in June, 1970, and that an examination of election addresses of Conservative candidates will show that none of them put these conditions before the British people? Is it not therefore the right hon. Gentleman's duty to call a General Election before he finally takes this country into Europe?

The Prime Minister: That is not a constitutional doctrine either. We made it clear in our election manifesto that we wanted to join if the terms were right and that we would negotiate. Having negotiated terms, we put them to Parliament and the House gave a majority of 112 in favour.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, however little there is to be said for a referendum in Britain, it has had the beneficial effect that it has shown that there are right hon. and hon. Members prepared to put principle before expediency and to put the national interest first.

Mr. Thorpe: So that there may be no misunderstanding abroad, will the Prime Minister confirm that at the last election each party made its position on Europe clear and that at no stage did any of them say that, when the terms were known, there would have to be a General Election before we finally decided to join?

The Prime Minister: As is well known, that is the case with all three parties.

Mr. Marks: Will the Prime Minister publish a list of Conservative candidates who urged a referendum in their election addresses at the last General Election?

The Prime Minister: That, certainly on this side of the House, is a matter for each individual Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA

Mr. Carter: asked the Prime Minister if he will invite the Head of State of the People's Republic of China to pay an official visit to Great Britain.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if he will now invite the Chinese


Prime Minister to pay an official visit to Great Britain.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Carter: Would not the Prime Minister agree that, as China represents potentially the biggest single market in the world, Britain and China should between them conduct a far higher level of trade than they do? To this end, will he try to institute trade missions between the two countries?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. But the hon. Gentleman's Question referred to a visit by the Head of State. I understand that, technically, at the moment there is no Head of State in China, so that in the circumstances there cannot be a question of a State visit between Heads of State. But I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the last part of his supplementary question. It is our desire to see as rapid an expansion of trade as possible. Three Chinese trade missions are in this country and four British trade missions are either visiting China or are about to go there. I hope that that will greatly encourage trade between our two countries.

Mr. Dalyell: At a time when American B52 bombers are pouring bombs on North Vietnam and there is fighting in South Vietnam, how would the Prime Minister define to Mr. Chou En-lai or anyone else Britain's rôle as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference?

The Prime Minister: That has nothing whatever to do with this Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (SPEECH)

Mr. Sheldon: sked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 11th March in Black pool on industrial matters represents Government policy.

The Prime Minister: As I have already said in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) on 28th March, "Yes, Sir".—[Vol. 834, c. 228–9.]

Mr. Sheldon: Although the main reason for turning down the idea of in-

vestment grants was that they were not related to profitability, the Prime Minister, despite what he said, has introduced investment grants which are not related to profitability. If this is not so—there is some confusion in industry as well as elsewhere—would he make it clear to industry that, even if they are not profitable, they will still receive the new investment grants?

The Prime Minister: The confusion seems to be in the hon. Gentleman's mind as much as anywhere, as I believe he himself realises. But I told him that I would send him the statement about the connection with profitability of the total inducements now available in the regions. This is being prepared and I will send it to him so that he can see exactly what is the position.

SOUTH OCKENDON MENTAL HOSPITAL

Mrs. Castle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Question No. 3 I asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he would institute an inquiry into the death of a patient at South Ockendon Mental Hospital, partly on the ground that the killer had not been found. I pointed out that the only accused, David Burles, had been found not guilty. In his reply the Secretary of State said that it was his understanding that David Burles had only been found unfit to plead. Thus, the Secretary of State implied that David Burles might have been the killer.
In fact, as the right hon. Gentleman should have known—he is refusing an inquiry on a false assumption—David Burles' defence counsel, the eminent counsel who is now our own Solicitor-General, took the case to appeal, and a verdict of "not guilty" was returned. I am sure that the Secretary of State would welcome this early opportunity of correcting any imputation which he has left on the character of David Burlesand confirming that he was, in fact, found not unfit to plead but, in the end, not guilty.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): I was only trying to point out that the right hon. Lady's assertion that other people believed that the killer responsible for the 1969 death is


still at large was not necessarily supported by the acquittal of David Burles.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mrs. Castle: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we can go into the matter further now. The point has been made.

Mrs. Castle: What the right hon. Gentleman said is nonsense. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but a verdict of "not guilty" which was obtained on behalf of this patient by our own current Solicitor-General means either that he was acquitted, and fully acquitted, or it does not. Surely it is quite wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to leave this imputation over a patient who has been found not guilty and, therefore, has been totally acquitted.

Mr. Speaker: The matter cannot be pursued further now.

Later—

Mr. Atkinson: May I revert, Mr. Speaker, to the very unsatisfactory reply which the Secretary of State gave just now about the South Ockendon Hospital? I am sure that he is aware of my consciousness of the distress caused to the parents of Robert Robertson, all of whom are constituents of mine, the case having been discussed previously in this House. Would he not be willing to consult his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General about the unsatisfactory conclusion at the time, particularly as the Solicitor-General was defending in his professional capacity the person accused of killing my constituent?
Therefore, as a result of these consultations, would the right hon. Gentleman sympathetically consider the idea that there should be an inquiry into the subsequent deaths which have taken place at the hospital—an inquiry not by the hospital management committee but by some outside authority? It is the staff themselves who feel dissatisfied about the whole thing, and it is they, together with the patients, who would like to clear up this whole thing. The fact is now

known, as the Solicitor-General has said, that the crucial witnesses to all this are the people who have been held unfit to give evidence. Therefore, the Secretary of State is turning down the request for an inquiry on the basis of information which was adjudged unfit to be accepted.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member's remarks have been noted, but this is an example of the trouble that the Chair gets into when it permits an irregularity. I allowed the right hon. Lady to raise this because I understood that there had been a mis-statement of fact about the actual verdict in a case. I thought it right that this should be put right as a simple issue of fact without any discussion of the merits. I understand that that has now been established. No doubt the Secretary of State will consider other points.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Today we got through 22 Oral Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Services, which is one of the lowest totals of Oral Questions in the period available before the Prime Minister's Questions that we have got through in many months. This was perhaps not more than half those put down on the first occasion on which Questions could be put down to the Secretary of State. Are we not getting to a lower and lower proportion of Oral Questions to the first Minister on the list being reached at Question Time? Does this not require urgent consideration, either by you, Mr. Speaker, or by the Committee which is looking into these matters?

Mr. Speaker: The remedy lies in the hands of the House. If hon. Members will ask shorter supplementary questions, we shall get through more Questions. My impression is not that of the hon. Member. I agree that we did not do very well today, but I think that recently we have been getting through comparatively more Questions.

MINIMUM RETIREMENT PENSION

3.38 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Bid well: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a minimum retirement pension related to average earnings.
It is appropriate that my effort to bring in this Bill takes place on the day when the Secretary of State for Social Services is answering Questions and when so many Questions have ranged over the inadequacy—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Russell Kerr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the importance of the remarks of my hon. Friend, can we have a bit of "shush".

Mr. Speaker: I believe that hon. Members will have regard to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Bidwell: —when so many Questions have ranged around the inadequacy of the existing old-age pension and the present plight of pensioners. I wish to bring in a Bill which will substantially increase old-age pensions. For the first time—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Speaker: If hon. Members want to conduct discussions, they must do so outside the Chamber.

Mr. Bidwell: For the first time, my Bill would put the national State retirement pension for a single person and that for a married couple on the basis of national average earnings of adult male manual workers in a wide range of industries—earnings which now stand at £30·93 and are bound to rise before October when the new pension rates come into being.
This figure is more indicative of the general standard of living than any other amount based on cost of living indices or anything else. It generally describes how "the people next door" are living. This is why the T.U.C. in its Economic Review for 1972 has called for such a base. It is not common knowledge that present retirement pensions have no firm base or anchorage at all. This is curious at a time when the Government encourage occupational pension schemes drawn from percentage contributions from rising earnings, and the previous Labour Gov-

ernment nearly managed to introduce a new scheme of national superannuation on the earnings principle.
A study of State retirement pensions paid since 1948 compared with average earnings is most interesting, and I invite the Minister to undertake such a study. It will give more facts about the provision for old age than most observations we have heard in the House over the years.
If we look at the set of figures elicited last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), we find a considerable fluctuation in terms of percentages of national earnings. If my memory serves me correctly, the percentage went up to its highest point of about 34 per cent. for a married couple during the period when the Labour Government were in office. That is the time to make the correct comparison. Tory Governments have never intended to make proper provision for old age through State insurance, and the Labour Government's scheme had nothing to offer existing pensioners and was mostly futuristic. It had nothing serious to say to the present aged who, to quote Jack Jones, the General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union, are too old to work and too young to die.
I am aware that pension and superannuation matters are complicated. There are "top hat" schemes to keep up the accustomed standard of living of company directors. Company accounts disclose a salting away of handsome funds for this purpose and the tax avoidance that goes with it. There are respectable schemes for salary-earners in the higher and lower middle classes which are sometimes contributory and sometimes not, there are the lousy, inadequate schemes for wage-earners, and sometimes there are no schemes at all.
My Bill relates to State retirement pensions and will provide a means of starting to do what both Tory and Labour Governments have failed to do. In 1970 when there was a Labour Government I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, to announce a substantial increase in State retirement pensions after the long hard struggle over the balance of payments. He was then to some extent caught by the two-yearly


review system, which is now to be changed, but mostly, by his own recent admission, he was too cautious.
The miserable increase announced for the coming October by the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes the lauded annual review a mockery. In 1965 a Labour Government made a meaningful improvement of about 20 per cent. By 1970, still under the Labour Government, another real improvement was overdue, but it was not to be. The level as it will be in October this year of £6·75 for a single person and £10·90 for a married couple is woefully inadequate and falls below subsistence and supplementary benefit levels.
A national disappointment arose from the Budget, especially as the air had been thick with rumours of a real increase at a time when there was an obvious need to stimulate domestic consumption. We can be sure that most old people will spend any extra money they get. I know, because I have been around and asked them. This denial of increased pensions is at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the rich men in the Government are doling out millions to their money-lending and money-raising friends and to property and land speculators.
The National Insurance (Further Provisions) Act, which is of assistance to many people who are over 80 regardless of means, came first as an attempted Private Member's Bill. Then a Tory Government Measure was ushered in under the argument that many old people did not get a chance in their younger days of building up funds to entitle them to a pension. Surely a similar argument in principle may be applied to most old people at present who had no chance in their younger days of building up occupational pension funds to enable them to live a decent life now.
We all know that many old people are too proud to come forward to ask for extra help. Indeed, the Department of Health and Social Security has demonstrated that it has these old people and others in need well in mind by launching a £340,000 advertising campaign to encourage the take-up of available benefits. As it was, in 1971 1,811,000 pensioners were in receipt of means-tested extra pensions—over 27 per cent. The

average amount was £2·27. It stands to reason that many are driven to seek extra help.
My Bill is in line with current T.U.C. policy. The need for it has been made doubly urgent by the Chancellor's announcement of the miserable pension increase in October which was not known to me when I decided to ask leave to bring in the Bill.
The Bill proposes a modest first-year start of £1·25 above the Chancellor's 75p for a single pensioner, making the immediate £2 extra which was called for by both the T.U.C. and the National Council of Labour. It also fits in with the current demand of the pensioners' associations by producing £8 for the single pensioner. The Bill proposes a pension of £14 for a married couple, which is £2·10 above the October proposal, and provides over three years annual increments until at least half national average earnings is achieved for a married couple and at least one-third of national average earnings is achieved for a single pensioner. This could be financed by the T.U.C. formula of 19/20ths of the National Insurance Fund contributed by employers and the State and the remainder by the employees. Trade union leaders have announced that they are ready to accept this and to advise their members to contribute extra for this purpose.
I am aware that it may be said that such proposals are too costly, and I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the statisticians will make heavy weather of them. But against the initial costs there are several financial off-setting factors, not least of which will be the saving in medical time and expenditure arising from old people's ailments and malnutrition through lack of heat and food which they cannot afford. In the winter many stay in bed to save fuel and to try to keep warm. Of course we could cheapen the load if we could arrange for people to die soon after they have ceased to be of much use to their employers.
There are several ways of pruning the Government's extravagant expenditure and tax relief plans to find the money for improved State pensions. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) could show how we could reduce arms expenditure and get better


value for money. We could put the unemployed to work and save a lot on unemployment pay. It is work and wages the unemployed want. It is estimated that during 1971 about£1,570 million was lost in goods and services because of the present unemployment figures.
Several daily and Sunday newspapers have consistently advocated extra pensions and have been sharply critical of the niggardly increases to be paid in October, which are likely by then to be eroded. Who could fail to be moved by the plight of old people who are able to afford only one manufactured meat pie between two and are not able to afford even to buy a pound of those sausages which are advertised on television? We have no right to keep pushing on both sides of the House for extended welfare services without at the same time making a determined effort to relieve old people who are in penury.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Member will forgive me for saying that this is a Ten-Minute Rule Bill. I would remind him that he has been speaking for 13 minutes.

Mr. Bidwell: I am about to come to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker.
In giving support to my Bill, the House will be fortified in the sure knowledge that a national referendum would result in an overwhelming vote in favour of giving old people the money and of charging this House with the responsibility of working out the means of so doing. I refer mainly to a neglected generation who endured two world wars, who worked and sweated for longer hours than are customary today, and many of whom for a large amount of that time did not even have a paid holiday of any sort. Surely their reward is long overdue. My Bill is a short but firm step in that direction.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Sydney Bidwell, Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. Michael Meacher, Mr. Norman Atkinson, Mr. William Molloy, Dr. Edmund Marshall, Mrs. Doris Fisher, Mr. Thomas Cox, Mr. Alec Jones, and Mr. Tom Torney.

MINIMUM RETIREMENT PENSION

Bill to establish a minimum retirement pension related to average earnings, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday, 5th May, and to be printed. [Bill 118.]

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Mr. Speaker: Before I call on the Lord President of the Council to move his Motion, I should like to say something about the two Amendments which have been tabled to it by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. William Ross), the first being in line 4, leave out '27th day of April' and insert '18th day of May', and the second in line 7, leave out 'two' and insert 'three'.
For the purposes of discussion, it would be in order in the debate to refer to the subject matter of both Amendments. If


That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining Proceedings on the Bill:—


Committee


1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before the 27th day of April.


5
Report and Third Reading


10
2.—(1) The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Eleven o'clock on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the Proceedings on Consideration such 10 part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.


15
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their resolutions as to the Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and Proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.



(3) The resolutions in any report made under Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) may be varied by a further report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph, and whether or not the resolutions have been agreed to by the House.


20
Procedure in Standing Committee



3.—(1) At a Sitting of the Standing Committee at which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the Proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.


25
(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a Member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.


30
4. No Motion shall be made to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule, but the resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee.



Conclusion of Proceedings in Committee


35
5. On the conclusion of the Proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.



Dilatory motions



6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.



it is desired to have a Division on one or other of the Amendments, it would be necessary for the Question on the Amendment to be proposed before the lapse of the three hours allowed for this debate under Standing Order No. 34. I suggest that when the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) replies to the debate, he should formally move whichever of the Amendments the Opposition prefer to make the subject of the Division. I should be grateful if the Chair could be informed in advance of the Amendment selected.

3.52 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): I beg to move,

40
Extra time on allot ted days



7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings on the Bill for one hour after Ten o'clock.


45
(2) Any period during which Proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the period under this paragraph.



Standing Order No. 13



8. Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of select committees at commencement of public business) shall not apply on an allotted day.


50
Private business


55
9. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill or, if those Proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the completion of those Proceedings.



Conclusion of Proceedings


60
10.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith proceed to put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—


65
(a) the Question or Questions already proposed from the Chair, or necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);


70
(b) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;



(c) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.


75
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.


80
(3) If, at Seven o'clock on an allotted day, any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time have not been concluded, any Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) which, apart from this Order, would stand over to that time shall stand over until those Proceedings have been concluded.


85
(4) If, on an allotted day, a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over to Seven o'clock on an allotted day, or to any later time under sub-paragraph (3) above, the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day at any hour falling after the beginning of the Proceedings on that Motion shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.


90
Supplemental orders


95
11.—(1) The Proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and the last foregoing paragraph shall apply as if the Proceedings were Proceedings on the Bill on an allotted day.


100
(2) If any Motion moved by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order is under consideration at Seven o'clock on a day on which any private business has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock, the private business shall stand over and be considered when the Proceedings on the Motion have been concluded, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so standing over for a period equal to the time for which it so stands over.

105
(3) If on an allotted day on which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time, no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.



Saving


110
12. Nothing in this Order or in a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee or the Business Committee shall—



(a) prevent any Proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or


115
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.



Re-committal



13.—(1) References in this Order to Proceedings on Consideration or Proceedings on Third Reading include references to Proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.


120
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.



Interpretation


125
14. In this Order—



'allotted day' means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day;



'the Bill' means the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill;


130
'Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;



'Resolution of the Business Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Timetable Motions are never pleasant or welcome in this House, and I hope that they will never become so. It would be a bad day for the House if they ever became the rule rather than the exception.

I might have wished that my first duty as a new Leader of the House were of a different kind from that which I have to fulfil today. However, I assure the House that, whatever else my desires may be, I have no desire to carve out any reputation as a Robespierre of debate. On the contrary, I very much hope that as often as possible we shall be able to reach a voluntary agreement about the total time which it is reasonably necessary to provide for a piece of legislation and also about how that timetable can most usefully be distributed. I assure the House that I shall always try to use my influence to bring about such a situation and to take full and fair account of the needs and feelings of the Opposition in such matters.

Before I come to the substance of the Motion, I wish to take the opportunity to express my great sense of honour in assuming the leadership of the House, and to vouchsafe my determination to uphold

to the best of my ability the high traditions of the office and the interests of all Members of the House, wherever they may sit.

I am sure the House would not wish this occasion to pass without my paying tribute to my predecessor in office, my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I believe the entire House feels appreciative of the debt we owe to him for his work as Leader of the House over the past 21 months.

I come to the Motion that is before us, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I assure the House that, although I have only just assumed responsibility for these matters, I have examined most carefully the necessity for this timetable Motion. The general arguments for and against the guillotine Motion have become somewhat timeworn. I hope the House will agree if I follow my predecessor's example and take such an argument as spoken. It is so easy to make endless quotations from hon. Members on both sides of the House and to contrast them with what was said by those same hon. Members when in opposition or when in


government and to go over the whole matter again. Therefore, I feel it is better to take those matters as read.

Nevertheless, if I do so, I hope the House will accept that I realise it is always a serious decision to have to take to curtail debate in this House in any way, and that it is a matter not to be taken lightly. Oppositions have a duty to examine vigorously, and, indeed, to criticise equally vigorously, a Government's proposals and to expose them to public view. The Opposition always have a right to seek to delay Government business, and this is their proper task. Where vigilance and reasonable delay end and fractiousness and sheer obstruction begin must be a matter of opinion, and I have no doubt that opinion on such matters on the Government side will always be one way and opinion on the Opposition benches will always be the other way.

Governments have a duty and a right to get their essential legislation through Parliament. They must ensure that parliamentary consideration of a Bill is reasonably allocated between its various parts, and that as a result of excessive enthusiasm by the Opposition they do not allow the situation to arise in which large sections of a Bill may go virtually undebated.

Finally, and perhaps most important, the Government have a duty to ensure that they provide a fair, and even generous, opportunity to the Opposition of the day to scrutinise their legislative proposals. Wherever possible, these things should be arranged by voluntary agreement, and my predecessor tried to do just that on this Bill. It was only after the Government failed to get voluntary agreement on the reasonable timetable which we put forward that the Government concluded that they were left with no possible alternative but to introduce this Motion at this stage of the Bill.

At this point I must inevitably become somewhat more controversial. I must point out to the House that the Opposition sought to create a situation in which the Government either would be forced to introduce such a Motion or would have to drop the Bill. This has been quite obvious and is in character with the Opposition's approach to the Housing Finance Bill relating to England and Wales. From the outset Opposition Mem-

bers raised objections to the normal Motion that the Committee should sit on Tuesday and Thursday mornings. Anybody who has been in this place for any length of time will know that if Standing Committees meet on Tuesdays and Thursday mornings this can mean only one thing; namely, that the Opposition has spilled over into obstruction. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"]

Debate on the sittings Motion, Amendments to it and related points of order took four and three quarter hours to complete. Similarly, the entire eleventh sitting of the Committee was devoted to debate on the Motion introducing a third sitting on Tuesday afternoons. Here again, any hon. Member on either side of the House with any experience knows that on any controversial Bill—and no one is pretending that this is not a controversial Bill—to suggest that one should have three sittings in the week is really not a very unreasonable or unusual proposition to make. Moreover, by the ninth sitting no fewer than 90 points of order had been raised—and that is an estimate made by an Opposition Member. Certainly since the ninth sitting points of order have continued at what I might perhaps call a brisk rate, and it would be interesting to see how many urgent seekers after parliamentary learning would argue that those points were always for genuine purposes either of elucidation or of the protection of the proper rights of debate.

No Committee stage on a Scottish Bill in recent years has exceeded 24 sittings. In this instance the Committee took 24 sittings to complete consideration of only 14 Clauses—considerably less than a quarter of the Bill—and, indeed, five sittings were taken on one single Clause. So progress has been considerably slower than on the equivalent Housing Finance Bill for England and Wales, for which the House considered a timetable Motion a few weeks ago. Such a rate of progress offered little or no hope that the Bill would be reported out of Committee before the Summer Recess. Let me repeat, because I think it needs repeating, that we tried to get the Opposition to agree to a voluntary timetable of reasonable duration.

This legislation is undoubtedly an important Measure. That is not controversial. What is controversial, of course, is


that it is also, in the Government's view, an essential Measure for the long-term betterment of Scottish housing.

In view of the facts I have just given, I simply do not see how the Government could come to any other conclusion than that in order to provide for an adequately balanced consideration of the remaining Clauses and Schedules of this Bill and for the completion of such consideration within a reasonable time an allocation of time Motion is required. The Bill has already been debated in Committee for 86 hours. As my right hon. Friend reminded the House recently, this compares with the introduction of guillotines by the Labour Party when it was in Government on the 1967 to 1968 Transport Bill after 70 hours in Committee and on the Ports Bill of 1969 after 82 hours in Committee. So we are certainly not being precipitate or unduly restrictive by the standards which the Opposition thought it right to apply when they were the Government.

As I say, guillotine Motions should not be easy or welcomed, but they are sometimes necessary; both parties have found this, and I think the whole House recognises it. I can only say that in view of the facts that I have just given, both of what has happened on this Bill and on the action of the Opposition when they were in Government, we are not being unduly restrictive or precipitate in bringing the Motion that I am moving.

Mr. James Hamilton: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us the Scottish Bills on which we at any time imposed the guillotine?

Mr. Carr: That is a question to which I must confess I do not know the answer, but no doubt in a few motnhs' or, as I hope, a few weeks' time I shall be better versed in these matters than I am on my second day as Leader of the House. I suspect that the answer is probably "None"; that is what I deduce from the various sounds I hear from opposite me and behind me. Of course, I suspect that the reason for that is that when my right hon. and hon. Friends from Scotland were in Opposition they always took a much more constructive and reasonable view than do right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in

mind that there are fewer of them and that one of the reasons for our attitude is that the majority of Scottish Members of Parliament have been excluded from this Committee and a number of us have put points to our hon. Friends that we wanted discussed in the Committee.

Mr. Carr: I do not think I will go into that. One thing I am quite sure about is that, whatever may be true of the majority of Scottish Members opposite, the majority of Scottish people want to see housing in Scotland improved. We believe, and have made no secret to the whole country that we believe, that this is one of the essential Measures required to bring about that much-needed improvement, and we shall be very happy to rest on the record of this Bill when it has become an Act and has had time to take its benign effect.
I stress in relation to the timetable that it will be open to the Business Sub-Committee to allot as many sittings as it chooses for the further consideration of the Committee stage between now and 27th April. Taking into account the 86 hours that have already been given to this Bill in Committee and the opportunity between today, 11th April, and the date mentioned in the timetable, 27th April, and given the fact that the Committee can sit as often as it likes and as the Business Sub-Committee chooses between now and 27th April, I really do not believe that anybody with any objectivity at all can possibly claim that this Bill will not have had ample, indeed very ample, and generous time for debate and consideration.
But it is essential that we get this Bill out of Committee by that date—27th April. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] It is essential if adequate time is to be available for the completion of the remaining stages of the Bill and of the necessary administrative arrangements, including notification to rent payers, to be made by local authorities so that the provisions of the Bill can come into operation by the due dates. This is an urgent Bill. It is urgent in the interests of every single tenant in Scotland, whether a council tenant or a private tenant, and this House owes it to those people to get it into operation by the time laid down.
For these reasons I believe that the Motion is a reasonable one, and I commend it to the House.

4.09 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: It falls to me to welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new rôle and to wish him well in it. He spoke, and rightly, about the high traditions of the office which he now holds. I think that from a House of Commons point of view it is probably the most important after that of Speaker ship to which any Member of Parliament can be called and I trust that he will bear in mind that his responsibilities are not only to the Government but also to the House of Commons and to the traditions of the House of Commons. I think and sincerely hope that he will fulfil the hopes that he has for himself in that way.
But he has made a pretty bad start. He said that he did not want to become a Robespierre. Realising what happened to Robespierre, I can well understand that. Why he should have started out with this bloody business, this guillotine, I just do not know. It may be his misfortune, but although he may have been briefed reasonably well we cannot expect him to be able to tell us the whole background to this decision. It is no good sizing up a Bill and comparing it with other Bills. Every Bill has its own particular features.
Of course, this Bill is very different from any other Housing Bill that we have had since this House first took an interest in housing the people of Scotland by resorting to public authority building. The first Bill was the 1919 Bill, after the Royal Commission on Housing, which was set up before the first World War and which reported throughout the war. I am sorry about the right hon. Gentle man's lack of knowledge of that. We cannot help it. But he will know that in respect of this Bill there has been a catalogue of mismanagement—

Mr. Ian MacArthur: Oh, no.

Mr. Ross: I hope that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) will allow me to make my speech. I am glad to see that he is in attendance and to know that he will be making his speech. He has been unswerving and unrewarded in his loyalty to the Government. We have heard his speech very often, and we look forward to hearing it again—

Mr. MacArthur: That is about the fourth time that the right hon. Gentleman has said that.

Mr. Ross: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman hopes that I shall not have to say it many more times. He had better think that one out.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we could have had a voluntary agreement. This is the one Bill on which a voluntary agreement was not possible, simply because of the nature of the Bill. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman appreciates it but, since 1919, all these Bills have been passed by this House, during which time we have had a succession of Ministers of Health, including Lord Addison, John Wheatley, Neville Chamberlain and Walter Elliot, and a succession of Secretaries of State for Scotland, including Sir Godfrey Collins, Tom Johnston and Joe Westwood. Every Secretary of State for Scotland in every Government honoured the financial obligations to the local authorities written in by previous Secretaries of State. They introduced new Bills, but they met the financial obligations which had been entered into with the local authorities by everyone else.
The difference with this Bill is that it is revolutionary. It tears up everything done under previous Bills and sets a completely new financial pattern. From that point of view, therefore, it requires very much more consideration than any other Scottish Bill that we have had before. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that.
Never have we met a more reluctant bunch of revolutionaries than right hon. and hon. Members on the benches opposite. The Leader of the House said how much time was spent on the sittings Motion. It is quite in order for an Opposition to oppose a sittings Motion. The trouble with the Government was that they could not move the Closure. We congratulate the Scottish Office on the strengthening that it has had with the resignation of the P.P.S. and the appointment of a new one. I am sure that friends of the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell) will be telling him that the nearest that he has come in Parliament to justifying his nickname has been in accepting this office. However, he must


not be put off by that. He has very distinguished predecessors—

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon (Greenock): With the exception of one.

Mr. Ross: —including myself. But let me remind the Leader of the House that on the first day that the Committee considered the sittings Motion the Government had not a majority. Two hon. Members opposite were not present. I am glad to see that they are both here today. They will have honourable mention from me. On that day there was no appearance of the new P.P.S., the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West, and the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). The result was that the Government had not a majority, and the poor Chief Whip of the Tory Party could not move the closure. That is why the Committee's consideration of that Motion went on. It was not because of anything that we did. It was because of the failures and mismanagement of the Government. But that was not the start of it—

Mr. MacArthur: This is nonsense.

Mr. Ross: I have the record before me. I have the attendance record. The two hon. Members to whom I have referred are here today. Let them deny it.

Sir John Gilmour: Surely this is the whole point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. We on this side are such reasonable people. We wanted to give right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite a day and a bit. That is why I did not come that day.

Mr. Ross: Hon. Members will understand why I called them the reluctant revolutionaries. It was they who wanted this Bill. We did not want it. But where were they? When they had a sittings Motion in which they were involved they did not support it. It may be that the Tory Whip was glad that they were not present, in case they voted for our side of the Committee.
The other point which has to be appreciated is that the Government moved a similar Motion in relation to the English Bill after that Committee had had 45 Sittings. We have had 27. They introduced that Motion after the English Committee had had 200 hours of discussion. We have had 86. Why? The reason is

simple. We could not begin considering this Bill until a bit of manipulation was done by the Government. They could not get enough Tories to man the Government Benches in the Committee. Although the Bill was printed on 9th November and although it was given a Second Reading early in December, we had to change the constitution of Scottish Committees. We had to reduce the membership of the Committee which was to consider this Bill to 26.
This is the most important Bill in relation to one of the social scourges of Scotland—housing—that we have ever had. It has been dealt with by the smallest Committee that we have ever had. On the Government side we have 14 members. On our side we have 12. Even so, the Government could not keen a quorum. I never saw such a trail. The man most active in the Committee was the Tory Whip, who spent all his time searching the corridors, peeping into telephone booths and into empty rooms, dragging in his supporters, while the Committee waited until the reluctant revolutionaries came in to support their Minister—

Mr. MacArthur: rose—

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his speech in a moment. We well know it. I want to make a very short speech in what is a very short debate—

Mr. MacArthur: rose—

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman must not tempt me. One of the things which have held up the Committee is that the Minister has been unable to resist temptation. Even this morning he could not. Any time that any hon. Member interrupted him he strayed from the Amendment. The Leader of the House spoke about points of order. Many of the points of order that I have raised were attempting to bring the Under-Secretary back to the Amendment. He was very angry with me. That is what happened. He got on to me this morning for the same reason—

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: Quite right.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) was not there at the time. But I will come to him in a moment.
The Leader of the House spoke about points of order. What we had to contend with was no one's business. First, hon. Members opposite would not come. Very often instead of starting at 10.30 a.m., the Committee started at 10.35 a.m. When hon. Members opposite did come and as soon as a quorum had been formed, out they went again.
It was hon. Members on this side which kept the quorum. We did so because we know the people affected. We know the effect that this Bill will have in Scotland. The Leader of the House said that the Bill was essential for the long-term betterment of Scottish housing, and he added that the Scottish people wanted it. The right hon. Gentleman knows nothing about the Scottish people. At the moment meetings are being held all over Scotland to try to persuade the Government to drop the Bill. People all over Scotland are signing petitions against the Bill—and no wonder.
The Leader of the House should appreciate that the Scottish housing position is very different from that in England. In Scotland there are about a million public authority houses. At the moment there are about 200,000 tenancies of privately-rented accommodation. Every one of the tenants of those houses will be affected. Taking the average number of people in a family as three—and, generally speaking, working-class families tend to be larger than others—probably four out of five people in Scotland will be affected by the Bill. Private tenants and council tenants will have their rents raised.
In 1968, the total amount in rents being paid in Scotland was £31 million. In the first year, indeed, in the first seven months of the operation of this Bill, rents will rise by twice the amount by which rents rose under the Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman is fond of the quotation about the Labour Government. The Labour Government did not raise rents. We left it to the local authorities' discretion, and they raised the rents by 7s. in that time. This time they will not be increases at the discretion of local authorities; they will be increases at the command of the Government. In the first seven months one million houses will

have to produce £24 million in rent. Set against the rents for the whole of Scotland in 1968, we get the enormity of it. Taking the first full year of this Bill, 1973–74, rents in Scotland will have to rise by £50 million. That, by a Government who are dedicated to stopping inflation, is a scandal.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to rebates. If he thinks that this resort to means test mania and inflicting on people the hardship and indignity of applying for rebates is the answer, he must understand that that is not the way to rule Scotland.
We in Scotland have become the victims of the Tory Party's failure to win seats in Scotland. They cannot man the Committee; they cannot manage their business on the Floor of the House. I do not entirely blame them. Things suddenly come in, as the new Leader of the House will probably discover, and as his predecessors have discovered, for which he has to make room. The fact is that we have been manoeuvred and manipulated into the curtailment of the one Bill that should never have been guillotined.
What about the management of the Bill? Was our opposition fractious? It was not. I have explained that the hon. Gentleman could not even curtail our proceedings, because he could not get his people there, limited as they were.
Have there been long speeches? I think that I delivered one of the longest speeches.

Mr. MacArthur: An hour and five minutes.

Mr. Ross: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned that.

Mr. MacArthur: It was an hour too long.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman was not there to hear it. If he had been present he would have heard his hon. Friend, after I sat down, say how good a speech it was, how helpful it was, and how lucky they were to have an able and experienced Member to give such an analysis of the housing position in Scotland. It was about that time—this was on the third sitting—that the hon. Gentleman told us that it had been a most interesting debate with helpful speeches. This was after the Leader of the House


had been complaining that we had been holding up the proceedings. Later there was surprise that I combined so much information in that speech in such a short time. The Minister was lauding and congratulating me. Of course, this is not what we get now. The scene changes. Now the Government say that it was not such a useful and important debate. We have not been fractious. We have had to contend with quite a lot.
This is one of the most important Bills in generations for Scotland. Yet we had a Minister handling his first Bill, which is not a pleasant experience, and we had a new Whip dealing with his first Bill. The hon. Gentleman had trouble with his strays.
He dwelt among the voiceless strays,
Behind the Minister and above.
A Whip whom there was none to praise,
And very few to love.
That is an ode to Hamish Gray, with apologies to William Wordsworth and Lucy Gray.
The hon. Gentleman, not satisfied with moving the closure, moved a leapfrog closure and then wondered why there were points of order. We got over that kind of thing.
It is not true to say that we have not been making reasonable progress. One of the troubles about lack of experience is to know what usually happens with Scottish Bills. Often a lot of time is spent on the early stages, and then we speed up. That is what has been happening with this Bill. It is not good enough to do it on a mathematical basis and say that we should do this and not do that.
The point is that we have still to finish discussion on the rent rebate and allowances together with Schedules 2 and 3. Schedule 3 in size is virtually a Bill in itself. We have to deal with the determination of rent increases and their timing, which are terribly important and, as they stand, very unfair, particularly in the first seven months. We have to deal with the whole business of decontrol. It is general decontrol which will bring people into rent increases in the private sector. This is important and demands time.
There is the extension of the fair rents system in the private sector. We are speeding that up as well as extending it.

There is also the whole question of housing associations. The Schedules consist of 50 pages. We have been reasonably helpful to the Government, because we had to persuade them to take the Schedules with the related Clauses. If they had done that with Schedule 1 it would have been out of the way and we would have had a much more reasonable debate.
We have to deal with Clauses 70 and 71 in which the Government introduce special powers for the Secretary of State to wield the big stick against local authorities by reducing or withholding grants and putting in a commissioner to run the housing departments of local authorities. They are very serious questions which demand time.
It is not right to say that the Bill should be finished in 14 days which are effectively 11 Parliamentary days. If we miss out Fridays—I do not suppose that the Government want to sit on Fridays—there are nine Parliamentary days left in which to deal with all this legislation. This is an outrage. I am surprised that the new Lord President should even pretend that this is adequate time for this subject. I sincerely hope that the Government will think again about this Motion.
In Committee we have had to contend with the dietary eccentricities of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) and the physical disabilities of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne)who, in order to get out of his difficulties about being in support of the Under-Secretary, brought his private secretary into the Committee and further held us up. This is the kind of thing with which we have had to contend.
I am sorry, too, about the Chairman. I apologise to our English Chairman, who has worked wonders in Committee, but he has had difficulties. He was drafted in. On the first four sittings we had three Chairmen. This does not do the reputation of Scottish Committees any good. I think that it was because there was one Chairman they did not want there that they got into this considerable difficulty. When we get this kind of thing, we get a certain measure of conflict in Committee.
Considering the importance of the Bill, affecting more than one million households, the only sure and certain thing is that rents will go up. It is an absolute scandal that the Government should proceed with this Bill. This is about the only thing that is left of the Chancellor's great speech of 28th October,1970. The cutting down of Government expenditure has gone. The Secretary of State is running round looking for local authorities to spend money because of unemployment in Scotland. Investment and shipbuilding grants are back. U.C.S. is still there. I could go on. However, this is where it first appeared. It was to save money, not to improve Scottish housing.
I am sorry that the Lord President has been landed with this kind of thing. There was one speech made by the Under-Secretary at one of the early sittings in which he suggested that we must concentrate on the things that matter and give all our resources and attention to them.
It is interesting that the Government are doing nothing about the true scandal of housing, the cost of housing at the present time. We have the position in which even that rabid revolutionary paper The Times has a headline such as "Price of Houses Shoots Up By 7 per cent. in Three Months"—all houses by 30 per cent. per year, new houses by 28 per cent., and still rising. House prices are rising out of the reach of the people. That will have its effects on rents in the private sector, as well as on the buying of old and new houses.
How did the Under-Secretary of State concentrate his time and attention in the recent Recess? He appeared in my home town—for my sins he happens to be my Member of Parliament—and officiated at the opening of a show house built by a speculative builder. One house is finished and another seven are going up. I gather one has been sold and options on another three have been taken up. The poor and homeless of Ayr and Ayrshire are not queuing up to buy these houses. They cost at least £20,000 each. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is a wise use of his time?

Mr, MacArthur: Come off it!

Mr. Ross: Will this meet the housing needs of Scotland? Of course not. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will come off that kind of development.
If the Government are serious about Scottish housing, they will drop this Bill and tackle one of the real problems of Scotland at the present time, the ability of local authorities to build houses for people at rents they can pay. I hope that we shall not only oppose the Bill but even persuade the Government to drop it.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Lord President on his new office. We are delighted to see him. We regret as much as he does the fact that his first appearance in his new and distinguished rôle was on the time-table Motion. But that, alas, is inevitable. Whatever our differences about this Motion may be, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in every part of the House will welcome my right hon. Friend today in the knowledge that he will protect the best interests of the House and will have no less regard for the best interests of back benchers on all sides who make up the majority in this House. We are very grateful to him for speaking today.
I should like to express my personal gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). This is not the first opportunity I have had to hear his gracious speech. I thank him for the way in which he unfailingly, whenever he has the chance, makes kind remarks about my parliamentary skill. It is one part of his speech to which I always listen with great pleasure. There are other parts to which I listen with less pleasure. But that part about me always gives me the greatest possible pleasure if only because nobody else speaks so generously about me as he does. I hope he will continue because it is the one bright point in his speeches.
I confess always to being in a position of some difficulty when the right hon. Gentleman gets up to speak, as he very often does in our Standing Committee, not knowing whether he is going to make a nice speech about me or not, because if he is not speaking about me he does tend to go on rather.
As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out just now, I missed the larger part of his speech lasting an hour and five minutes. Frankly, after 10 minutes of it I could not take any more. I went out for a cup of well-sweetened coffee which I thought would do my soul more good, which indeed it did.
If I may leave my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman, I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend that it is profitless to bandy statistics about the House, as is so often done on unhappy occasions of this kind. We have had no fewer than 27 sittings of the Standing Committee to consider this Bill. If I may with great respect disagree with my right hon. Friend, I think he said we have sat for 86 hours. My count is 97 hours. We need not quibble: there has been the best part of 100 hours of debate on this Bill. The debates have covered more than 1,600 columns of the Official Report. What have we done? We have completed 17 Clauses of a Bill which consists of 78 Clauses. That is not speedy progress.
If any person looks through the reports of the 27 sittings he will recognise at once that the Under-Secretary who has been in charge of this Bill for the Government has handled the Committee with the utmost courtesy and with the greatest possible patience. He has listened to every argument. He has answered every point. With commendable restraint he has preserved his patient bearing throughout. My hon. Friends would join with me in congratulating him on the way he has withstood the second-rate dominie-like lectures he has had to bear from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock and the very lengthy speeches he has had to hear. He has performed wonders on the Front Bench. No one can fault him for his leadership of the Bill.
Any impartial observer would quickly have seen that the Opposition decided in the Committee to pursue a policy of sustained utterance. That was recognised early on by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), who said that some of his hon. Friends may have been spinning out time. One of the best things about the hon. Member is that he presents to us moments of great truth from time to time. This is one of them.
Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen were spinning out time, as is their right. There came a time when I thought that perhaps the amount of spinning might decline. That was the moment when the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) on the Front Bench, indicated to us that once we had completed Clause 6 things might move a little more quickly. We waited patiently—anyway, I did—until the end of Clause 6, and things moved much as before; that is, very slowly indeed. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member was not able to command the support of his hon. Friends.
I can understand some hon. Gentlemen opposite wanting to take things slowly. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), for whom we have the greatest affection and the most compassionate understanding, pointed out earlier that he hoped we would go slowly because he did not want to be outpaced. He had to take things slowly because he found things were a little difficult to understand. We have been very patient, but after 27 sittings of the Committee he must have understood what the form is in Standing Committee life. He has spoken regularly, and we are delighted to have him with us, but I do not believe it is reasonable to expect us to hold things back out of compassion for him any longer.
Hon. Members opposite have been spinning out time because they oppose the Bill. In their opposition they have grasped, even beyond the point of reason, the opportunities which our procedure allows to an Opposition. As is their right, the Opposition have delayed progress on the Bill to the point when they have invited this Motion. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock was having some fun when he said that on occasions there had not been quorums. He cannot wear a white sheet in terms of attendance at the Committee. Time and again I have seen the right hon. Gentleman engaged in his favourite pastime of quorum-bursting. I do not know what the English ablative absolute is, but, the signal having been given by the right hon. Gentleman or the Labour Whip, Labour Members have marched out of the Committee leaving one lone Labour voice on the back benches making an interminable speech. Time and again we have seen that lone Labour Member


standing in the Labour wilderness with no one at all on the Opposition Front Bench. Time and again the right hon. Gentleman has been absent.
It would be useful, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to make calculations, to work out how much time he has spent in this Committee in which he professes to have so much interest. Is it half time? Is he a half-time leader of the Opposition in Committee? Is it perhaps three-quarters' time? It is certainly no more than that. It is not reasonable for the right hon. Gentleman to make these comments about us when he and the vast majority of his supporters have been absent over and over again. I cannot recall any moment when we were in Opposition when we deserted the Opposition Front Bench; we never deserted the Opposition Front Bench because to do so is a grave discourtesy to the Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman is at least here today and I would remind him that it was he who made it clear at our second sitting in Committee nearly three months ago that he and his hon. Friends did not want the Bill. He has gone on saying that and he and his hon. Friends have demonstrated their dislike of the Bill by their attempt to block it totally in Committee. Maybe the right hon. Gentleman does not want the Bill, but we on this side of the House want the Bill, and just as the Opposition have the right to delay matters in Committee, so we have the right to introduce the timetable Motion, much as we dislike being obliged to do so. We want the Bill and we are going to get it. I hope that when we come to consider future sittings we shall not go beyond the number we now have. Three sittings a week is perfectly reasonable, and if the Opposition have squandered the available time so far, that is their fault. I see no reason why we should go out of our way to make more time available just to be wasted.
I said that Scotland wants the Bill. The Bill is wanted because the present system of housing finance simply has not worked. It is not solving Scotland's housing problem. Yet the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, who have become extreme traditionalists in housing matters, do not want to move with the times. They want to cling to a

system which has been seen not to work. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the impression he sometimes gives—and it is one which I know is deeply unfair to him and his hon. Friends—is that he has a vested interest in depression and decline.
The present system of housing finance in Scotland is unfair, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it as well as anyone. The vast majority of people want to see the unfairness removed. I would like to read from a leading article in the Scotsman which summarised the Bill as follows:
It cannot be maintained that all local authority tenants require to have their rents subsidised. It is wrong that persons well able to pay their own way should receive assistance from the taxpayers and ratepayers and that they should be helped by people not so well off as they are themselves. It is a mistake also to assume that only local authority tenants require to be helped and that all tenants of privately-owned houses are in the upper income ranges. All this, of course, has been said frequently in the past. But action has become urgent and the Government deserve credit for the lead they have given.
That summarises the position very fairly.

Mr. John Smith: I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's statement that the people of Scotland wanted the Bill, and I waited patiently to hear some evidence of that. So far he has given no evidence other than that the Scotsmanwants the Bill. Would he tell us what evidence there is that Scots people generally, bearing in mind that they returned twice as many Labour M.P.s as Conservative M.P.s at the last General Election, want this Bill? What is the evidence to which he can point of great popular feeling for the Bill in Scotland?

Mr. MacArthur: I am glad the hon. Gentleman raised that because he assists me in what I am about to say, not for the first time. What disturbs me very much, more than the time taken by the Opposition, is the way in which they have distorted the intentions of the Bill. It is no exaggeration to say that the Opposition have quite wittingly caused great and unnecessary alarm throughout Scotland. I hope that the Press and television in Scotland will help to redress the balance by calling wider attention to what the Bill will achieve.

Mr. Smith: rose—

Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman has interrupted me once and I have not yet answered him. One question at a time. He asked me why I believe the people of Scotland wanted the Bill. I have masses of evidence. Every week in my constituency I have this evidence, and if the hon. Gentleman would listen with both ears and not only with his left ear, he would hear the same arguments. What particularly disturbs me is the grave irresponsibility of the Opposition in misrepresenting the Bill. Scotland wants the Bill because Exchequer subsidies under it will rise, not fall. Who, listening to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, would believe that subsidies were to go up? They are, and that is a fact.

Mr. Frank McElhone: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacArthur: No. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman week after week, day after day. The only time he listened tome was when I moved some very good Amendments in Committee which were rightly accepted.
People in Scotland want this Bill because subsidies are going up. They want the Bill, too, because subsidies will be handled fairly and sensibly. In future, subsidies will be directed to areas of need, and any good Socialist should applaud a Conservative Government directing public help to areas of need. These are the areas of high cost and areas where the housing need is greatest.
Even more, the people of Scotland want the Bill because subsidies to the individual will be directed to individuals in need; to people who are hard-pressed and who really need help. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite for once tell the people of Scotland that as a result of this Measure the hard-pressed will be paying less in rent than they are paying now, and that in extreme cases they will be paying no rent at all.
The people of Scotland also want the Bill because it is extending a system of rent rebate in a way that will ensure that the hard-pressed are genuinely helped. For the first time there is to be a statutory system of help for people in need. For the first time throughout Scotland tenants who cannot afford a reasonable rent will not have to pay the money themselves. They will be helped by subsidy, and rightly so.
For the first time in Scotland, the new rent rebate system will be extended to tenants of private property, and why not? What is fair for a local authority tenant must be fair for a private tenant as well. At last we have made this major housing breakthrough.
For the first time we have true care, true compassion, true help and a system of fair, larger subsidies directed to areas and people in need. Every hon. Gentleman opposite knows in his heart that this is right and fair. These are the reasons why we want the Bill and why these provisions are required by the people of Scotland. This is why we welcome the Motion and look forward to the early enactment of a Bill which will mean a better housing future for Scotland.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The hon Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) will not be surprised if I do not follow him into the wilderness which he traversed.
I wish at the outset to join those who have congratulated the new Leader of the House on his appointment. The right hon. Gentleman kindly complimented me on my maiden speech in October of last year. I am delighted to have this opportunity to offer him my best wishes and to congratulate him on his appointment.
By introducing this Motion on a Tuesday the Government are depriving the Opposition of 8 to 10 hours of debating time in Committee upstairs because if we had not been wasting our time dealing with such a trivial matter as the guillotine, we could have been occupied more profitably discussing the substance of the Bill and some of the excellent Amendments which the Opposition have tabled to it.
Despite the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, the Conservative Party in Scotland has no mandate for this legislation. That is the simple reason why we are debating this Motion. If hon. Gentlemen opposite need proof of that, they will get it on Tuesday, 2nd May, when Conservative candidates throughout Scotland will be the victims of this minority Government's decision to introduce this legislation.
My hon. Friends have been denied adequate time to discuss the Bill which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for


Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) pointed out. affects perhaps 90 per cent. of the population of Scotland. That contrasts with the information given by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, though his remarks today were a change from our having to listen to stories about his love or horses.

Mr. MacArthur: rose—

Mr. Ewing: No. The hon. Gentleman was not keen to give way. Nor am I. I am anxious to be brief because many of my hon. Friends wish to speak. He will recall the many occasions in Committee when we were obliged to stop discussing serious Amendments while the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), who I regret is not in his place, blew his nose, sneezed or otherwise had an allergic effect on his hon. Friends.
It is clear that the Government have no mandate for this legislation. Of the 16 Members of the Committee, only six are present today on the benches opposite. [Hon. Members: "Five."] I apologise to the Secretary of State for including him in my count. Only five Conservative Members of the Committee upstairs are interested enough to adorn the benches opposite to listen to these proceedings.
It is equally clear that the people of Scotland do not want the Bill. Some time ago I was told by the Secretary of State that 16 local authorities in Scotland had protested at the Government's intention to introduce these provisions. How many have protested to date?
There is a massive campaign going on in Scotland to convince the Government that this legislation is wrong. It will succeed not in solving the housing problem but in increasing the rents of private rented property as well as of municipal dwellings. It will also increase the rate able values of owner-occupied property, a point that is seldom made. It will have a far-reaching effect on housing in Scotland and will halt municipal house building.

Mr. MacArthur: Nonsense.

Mr. Ewing: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say "Nonsense", but this is one of the hidden intentions of the Government. If hon. Gentlemen opposite feel that this is nonsense, why did so many local authorities submit housing

plans before the deadline of 1st December? The Minister will say that they did that to receive the subsidies that were payable at the time, but that is only half the answer. The other half is that under this legislation it will be impossible for them to continue municipal house building. In future the revenue for building their houses will have to be raised from rents, and no local authority will put itself at risk by increasing rents to the levels necessary for that purpose.

Mr. MacArthur: That is scare-mongering.

Mr. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman should have a look at what is really going on in Scotland, where Labour hon. Members are being invited to visit Conservative constituencies because Conservative hon. Members do not have either the knowledge or courage to put the facts of the Bill before the people they represent. Indeed, next Friday night I shall be in South Angus and Arbroath speaking about the Bill because the representative of the area—I regret his absence from this debate; his absence shows his interest in the matter—will not tell his constituents exactly how the Bill will affect them.

Mr. MacArthur: rose—

Mr. Ewing: I have no intention of giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
Trades councils, local authorities and all sorts of organisations are campaigning against the Bill because of its iniquities. At my by-election the Conservative candidate did not campaign on the issue of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. It is significant that no mention was made in Scotland at the last General Election by the Conservative Party of the advantages that the Bill would give to municipal tenants, tenants of private rented property or owner-occupiers.
Hon. Members opposite know the serious impact that this will have on rent and rates in Scotland. They will see for themselves, after the municipal elections on 2nd May, just what the people of Scotland think about the Measure. What is probably more serious for those Conservative Members of Parliament who look a little further ahead to the next General Election—not much further, but a little—is that when the people go to the


polls in Scotland on the next occasion, they will see what they think of the Bill.
We on this side of the House are pledged to repeal this iniquitous Measure. Against that background, I hope sincerely that the Motion will be rejected.

5.0 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: I am pleased to be able to address the House after the speech of my constituent, the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing). It is thanks to his support that I am a Member of the House. He put his finger on a great deal of the trouble. He asked about the effect on rates. Is not this one of the things which worry people in Scotland almost more than anything else? How does the burden on the rates arise? It is because we have had a housing finance policy under which no one has been able to balance their housing accounts, and consequently the balances have had to be made up from the rates. This burden had to fall on the rich and poor alike. We have a bad rating system, and the Green Paper which my right hon. Friend has produced is a pretty poor attempt to put it right.
We know perfectly well that the rate burden falls very unfairly. With two identical houses, side by side, one may be occupied by three members of a family, all working, and the other may be occupied by an old-age pensioner; but both occupiers pay the same level of rates. Because housing accounts are not balanced—the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs mentioned this—a very unfair burden falls through the rates on the general ratepayers of Scotland. That is what my right hon. Friend is seeking to put right. I believe that right hon. and hon. Members opposite believe this to be necessary. It is a lot of sour grapes that they are not supporting the Measure.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) trotted out all the Bills that all the Secretaries of State for Scotland had brought forward to try to get housing in Scotland up to the standard we all want. Together with hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have served on the Select Committee and visited cities such as Glasgow, seeing some of the housing conditions, and knowing that they are far worse than we ought to tolerate.

Taking into account all the Bills produced by various Secretaries of State over the years but still having these intolerable conditions, surely it is right to break out from what we have been doing and say that we must have a new approach to this matter. This is what my right hon. Friend has done.

Mr. McElhone: I am grateful to the hon. Member for mentioning Glasgow. Is he aware that during the three years that we had a Tory Council, from 1968 to 1970, house building halved? Is he also aware that we are still awaiting the fulfilment of the Prime Minister's promise about the very special aid Glasgow is to get?

Sir J. Gilmour: But would not the hon. Gentleman agree that although house building may have decreased, it decreased under legislation of a Labour Government? In other words, the Government of the day were not giving the local authority the incentive to build houses. All councils, irrespective of whether they be Labour, Liberal, Conservative or anything else, are prisoners of the legislation passed by this House. We as a Conservative Administration are now producing legislation which will give the opportunity for the burden to be spread more equitably. That will allow more houses to be built.
What has happened over many years in Scotland? Have houses been maintained as well as they ought to have been, or have they deteriorated and fallen into disrepair? Are the sort of conditions in places such as Glasgow the result of adequate rents being charged so that houses could be maintained and improved? I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that the answer is "No". Therefore, that is something else which is being done now. It is essential to maintain the existing stock of houses and to improve them. In certain cases it may be necessary to amalgamate houses. But whatever we do, surely we want to raise the level of rents, but with a rent rebate and rent allowance scheme which is fair to those who cannot afford to pay the rents, so that the properties can be maintained. If that is done, it will provide the opportunity for an adequate stock of houses to be maintained and improved. Also, because the housing accounts can be put into balance without


an undue burden on the ratepayers, we can look forward to a day when enough houses will be built.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock quoted a headline from The Times. I imagine that it was probably published in the last few days. It was about the rising cost of houses.

Mr. Ross: Yesterday.

Sir J. Gilmour: This is the nub of the problem. What forces up prices? It is scarcity, and we have to get rid of scarcity to keep down prices.
I should like to protest about another thing. In an intervention, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) spoke about the size of the Committee. One of the reasons why we have a timetable Motion now is that the Bill applies equally to every constituency throughout Scotland and we have had far too many Members on the Committee. As a result, we have had the same arguments repeated over and over again. I can quite understand that some Bills have very different effects on different constituencies, so that the effect in the Outer Hebrides, in the Borders, in Aberdeenshire and in the big cities may be different, and that, therefore, a large Committee is necessary to discuss such Bills. But my right hon. Friend has produced a Bill which has exactly the same effect on every constituency in Scotland and, therefore, the need for such a large Committee to continue the discussion has been unnecessary. This is probably one of the reasons why we have a timetable Motion. I hope that we shall not have a Committee of such a size again, because it is wasteful of time and opportunity.—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]
I believe that the Bill will be welcomed by the people in Scotland because, after it is passed, they will begin to see its effects. At present, all they are getting is the propaganda for the local elections and the scaremongering, which has no relation to what will happen. I am happy to rest on what will happen and the effects the people will see when the Bill is passed. That is why I welcome the Motion. The sooner the Bill is passed, the sooner will the people see the effects of this legislation.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Alex Eadie: The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) should not assume that hon. Members who are not fortunate enough to be Members of the Committee would have no contribution to make in the Committee. That is an arrogant assumption. But perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who is an old political foe of mine, would not want to convey that to the House. We may all have something to say.
I believe that we have been deprived of rights in relation to the size of the Committee. This is the second occasion on which I have had to take part in a debate to defend the rights of my constituents and, to some extent, to try to articulate what I believe to be the rights of the Scottish people. The former Leader of the House came to the Dispatch Box on a Friday and tried to slip through a limitation of the numbers of hon. Members who would serve on the Scottish Standing Committee in the future. He attempted to do it not by argument, debate and discussion but by the clandestine means of trying to slip it through at about four o'clock on a Friday.
It was fortunate that some of us were here to prevent that. But now we have the guillotine Motion which again will deprive us of our rights. We have our rights and we will not be jeered out of them. The "We are the masters now" speech from the hon. Member for East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) will be noted in many constituencies in Scotland. It was an arrogant speech and he tried to shout his way through most of it. But we have rights, particularly on this Bill, and we intend to argue, debate and discuss the Measure.

Mr. MacArthur: rose—

Mr. Eadie: No, I will not give way. The hon. Member wishes to intervene in every speech, but he will have to learn to take it as well as to dish it out.
In October, 1970, the Chancellor of the Exchequer boasted that by introducing the proposed housing legislation there would be a saving of £100 million to £200 million so this is not social legislation. Its main purpose is to save money. If this much is to be saved it will be the council tenant who will be required to pay it along with people living in S.S.H.A.


houses and, to some extent, private tenants.
As one of my hon. Friends has already said, owner-occupiers will be involved in the Bill. The more it is examined, the clearer it becomes that every person with a roof over his head in Scotland will be affected by the Bill to the extent they will require to pay more for their housing and shelter. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire may not like what I am saying, but he made no attempt to argue the case. He quoted the Scotsman. As my hon. Friend said, he did not indicate which Scotsman he was quoting. There were adverse comments in the Scotsmantoday of which no supporter of the Government could be proud—that people were getting money to speculate in housing while hundreds of thousands of others were living in scandalous accommodation.
I was referring to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer was saying in October, 1970, but of course we can relate this in Scottish terms. The Public Expenditure Committee's Report boasts that there will be a saving of £10 million on housing. That figure represents about 4 per cent., but other public expenditure is increasing in the region of 14 per cent. The most dastardly thing is that the Government are taking powers away from local authorities. When the Government came to power in June, 1970, they said they would try to unite the nation, but Scotland has never been more divided than at present.
In opening this debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) made an important point when he said that the Government had welshed on every financial undertaking by all previous administrations since about 1910 or 1919. During the General Election we were told the people would be set free and that local authorities would be able to use their own initiative and enterprise. We were told there would be more local government and less central Government.
It has been shown that the Government were elected on a lie. They introduced this legislation and they propose not only to reorganise local government but to take away the powers of local government to decide its financial position on rents and housing policy. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should remember

what was said by, I think, Mr. Nixon Browne, a former hon. Member of this House. He believed it was democratic for local councils to be elected and for them to decide how they would operate their housing policy and what the rents should be. He believed that was good democracy—and that was only in the 1950s. In 1972 we have an Administration which believes that is not good enough.

Mr. Edward Taylor: A very good Administration.

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) has had a hand in this and he will suffer for it because the people of Scotland will show their wrath to him. The position of government does not belong solely to the Tories. At the end of the five-year period they will have to go to the people and, while there are not many hon. Members opposite present now, I anticipate there will be even fewer after the next election, not only because of housing but because of unemployment and other problems.
There was some doubt about increased subsidies. I wonder whether some hon. Members opposite have examined the Bill, because some of the so-called subsidies are subsidies that never were. We have tried to examine the high-cost subsidy. It will benefit one local authority and only 47 houses. Other subsidies are transitional subsidies which will disappear. My constituents know how much the Bill will cost them. My constituency includes a new town and two or three boroughs and an electorate of 80,000. I tried to discover what the Bill will mean for us. The rents for my county council are about £82 on average, but, according to the county treasurer, as a result of the Bill, when the transitional period is over, rents of county council tenants will be in the region of £237. How in the name of goodness can any Government try to tell my electorate that they are introducing a piece of social legislation when, as a result of the Bill, rents are proposed to escalate to this level?
We are told that tenants in private property will be given a subsidy. I have never been happy about how private tenants were treated. I remember once when I contested the seat held by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), the


Under-Secretary, in one General Election, saying that some of the rents charged in the town were an absolute disgrace. I felt that there was exploitation by private tenants. Not all private landlords are bad, but there seem to be more bad landlords than good ones.
It is obvious that as a result of the rent allowance scheme and the de-control under the 1957 Act we are creating a bonanza for landlords. It is perfectly clear from story after story that has been told, particularly in the big cities and even in my constituency, that the landlords are rubbing their hands in glee. They will welcome this guillotine Motion because they cannot have the Bill soon enough. It is certainly a new parliamentary principle that a Government should seek to interfere with local authorities in this way.
The Minister should tell the House why he hardly persuades, but nearly compels, local authorities to operate the Measure before it has the Queen's consent. It is surely a new concept to tell local government, "You will increase your rents now, because we are sure of getting a Bill passed which will make sure that the rents are increased by £24 to £26." That is what I mean by there being not only an abrasiveness but an arrogance about the Government. They assume that the politics of persuasion have gone by the board, that the campaign in Scotland to try to persuade them that the Bill is wrong, that they are wrong and that they must withdraw the Bill, can be ignored. They are telling people that they will not listen.
When a Government refuse to listen to the people and refuse to participate in the politics of persuasion they do harm not only to the people but to parliamentary democracy. I ask the Government to consider the road they are travelling along, because they are harming democracy, never mind council tenants.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Edward Taylor: I apologise most sincerely to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) for not having heard his opening speech. But I have had the great pleasure of hearing him in the Committee many times make the same speech week after week, and I presume that he did the same today. If he has made any

minor amendments to it, I look forward very much to reading it in Hansard.
It is always a great pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), because although we have seen some remarkable turnabouts by Labour Members on various issues we know that the hon. Gentleman is straight in the way he approaches politics, that he adopts a consistent line which he keeps to despite the changes in party policy and policy within his constituency. However, I was astonished to hear him say that the Government will shortly face the people, who will have an opportunity of saying what they think about them—in other words that there might be a speedy General Election. The Labour Party would regard it as the worst possible thing to have to face a General Election at a time when they appear to be split from end to end on every major issue. I very much doubt whether they would have any conclusive policy that they could put to the people.

Mr. Ewing: Can we take it from the courage the hon. Gentleman is showing that at the next General Election he will, probably for the first time, display the word "Conservative" on his election posters as a result of the Bill?

Mr. Taylor: I shall be only too glad to consult the hon. Gentleman before I put up my Conservative posters in Cathcart. Irrespective of what those posters will be, we know that in Cathcart as well as Stirling and other places the Conservative candidate will be successful.
We are discussing an important Motion for a guillotine. I have never liked guillotines, and I have sometimes opposed guillotine Motions. I remember taking part in important Committees, considering Bills on steel nationalisation, education and the nationalisation of ports, when vicious guillotines were imposed by a Labour Government to suppress reasonable discussion. The most notorious was the one on the Transport Bill, a Measure which would have had a savage effect on the Highlands of Scotland, the west of Scotland and many other areas. We were only starting the discussion, trying to be constructive at all times, when a vicious guillotine was imposed by the Labour Government, so the opposition have no right to complain about the principle of the guillotine. All they can


do is to ask whether the Motion is justifiable, whether it is fair and reasonable.
No one who has taken part in the Committee proceedings can doubt that a guillotine Motion is fully justified. As some Opposition Members have admitted in the Committee—particularly the very honest hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown)—Labour Members have spoken at great length, repeating things and being not at all constructive in their approach to the Committee's consideration of the Bill. I hope that as a result of the Motion the Opposition will concentrate their endeavours and their speeches on constructive matters, discussing what is good for the people of Scotland and how the Bill can be used or improved to benefit all the people of Scotland.
I have been astonished at the way in which the Committee debates have been going. It has been obvious that Opposition Members have been trying to distort the Bill, to try to arouse unjustified fears in tenants in Scotland. They have been trying not to find out what the Bill does but to distort its intention. They have caused a great deal of unnecessary alarm to tenants, many of them elderly people.
If we carried on as we have been doing, I estimate that it would be about 1978 before we completed the Committee stage, which would mean that the Bill would be dead. What would be the consequences if the Bill were scrapped, if it were talked out? I know what the effect would be for private tenants. I speak with a little knowledge because I represent a constituency with as high a proportion of private tenants as any hon. Member. I have a substantial number. In the Kings Park and Croft foot areas of my constituency we have one of the largest private rented schemes in the whole of Scotland. In addition, we have many of the older properties which are privately rented.
Under the present law, as the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) well knows, because it was his legislation, there is not one private tenanted house in the whole of Scotland which can get a qualification certificate from a local authority—that just means that it must have certain basic standard amenities—which cannot be transferred tomorrow from control to rent regulation. In other words, under that legislation, as consolidated in

the 1971 Act, there is not one house in the whole of Scotland which can get a qualification certificate which cannot be switched immediately from a controlled rent to a fair rent. There are people who have been tenants for 30 or 40 years and who have a controlled rent of perhaps 50p a week or 62½p. Under the fair rents legislation those rents might be increased to £4, £5 or £6 a week, not as a result of Tory legislation but as a result of the legislation passed by the previous Government and presented by the hon. Member for Greenock. Although the hon. Gentleman is very active in interruptions, T am delighted that he has not denied that. He cannot.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Why should I deny that description? It was endorsed by the Rent (Scotland) Act, 1971, which the hon. Gentleman passed as a Minister, consolidating the position. Is the hon. Gentleman saying it is wrong that those houses that are up to a satisfactory standard as laid down in the 1969 Act should not get the certificate or should not be taken out of control? Under the Bill they will all be taken out, no matter what state they are in.

Mr. Taylor: I am complaining about Labour Members trying to give people the impression that the rent rises for private accommodation taking place now—today, this week, last week and last month—are the result of Tory legislation, when they know this is not the case.
I accept that this was consolidated in the present Government's 1971 Act, but what is blatantly dishonest is for the Opposition and some of their councillors and candidates to go round private rent areas and say, "Your rent is being put up by the Tories", when they know that the rents are being pushed up as a direct result of the Labour Government's 1969 Act, which was in addition to the Labour Government's 1965 Act.
Hon. Members opposite must know that every single private rented house in Scotland can have its rent increased under the Labour Government's Act. That is a fact which is not subject to qualification or argument. Both under this Bill and the Labour Government's Act, fair rents for private property are being introduced. But there is a difference. Under the previous legislation, the


rents of some houses can go up from, say, 62½p to £3, £4 or £5 a week, and the tenants can either pay the increase phased over a period of three or five years or try to get supplementary benefit.
Supplementary benefit is a wonderful thing. It provides help to people in need, right on the borders of poverty—people who cannot afford to pay and who have little assets. But many people are excluded from it. In other words, for the vast majority of tenants no help is available from supplementary benefit because their incomes are too high or they have capital sums which they may have saved throughout their lives, perhaps £1,000 in the bank, which will cut them out. But this Bill introduces a rent rebate scheme for such tenants, which will mean that all those on limited income, which might be quite high, will be able to have a substantial part of their rent paid effectively by the Government.

Mr. James Dempsey (Coatbridge and Airdrie): If they take it.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right, but surely he will accept that if we have a rent rebate scheme running on exactly the same basis as the rate rebate scheme, it will attract a far higher proportion of people than would perhaps consider supplementary benefit.

Mr. Dempsey: I appreciate that most applicants will accept supplementary benefit towards the cost of the rent or will accept the rent rebate scheme, but I have three cases in Coatbridge of pensioners who will not accept supplementary benefit; nor will they accept rent rebate.

Mr. Taylor: I am sorry to hear that and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to persuade them to accept rent rebate. On the other hand, I hope that he will accept that, as against those three cases, there are hundreds who will accept rent rebate and that his constituents who are private tenants will, as a result of the Labour Government's legislation, be faced with substantial rent increases with no help available from a rent rebate scheme.
It was not as if this fact was not drawn to the Labour Government's attention. We have all been re-reading the proceedings on the 1969 Act. The case for a rent rebate scheme under that Measure was specifically put to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, then Secretary of State, by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State in the Second Reading debate. My right hon. Friend specifically suggested a rent rebate scheme for private tenants. The response was no rebate scheme whatever. If the Opposition continue with their filibustering in the Committee, which is quite unjustifiable, they will bring about the situation where the rents of private tenants will go up, with no protection whatever from a rebate scheme.

Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) has been speaking for just over 20 minutes. He has not so far spoken at all to the Motion but entirely on the merits of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) knows, that is a matter for the Chair. Quite a number of hon. Members have strayed in the debate, but the Chair is aware of the width of the speeches.

Mr. Taylor: We have had, I am afraid, that sort of thing in the Committee. We have had very wide speeches indeed, which has added to the length of the proceedings. But I think that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) would accept as directly relevant the point that if we do not pass the Motion and the Bill does not become law, the private tenants in Aberdeen will find their rents going up under the Labour Government's legislation with no protection whatever from a rent rebate scheme. The Opposition must face the straight issue that if they vote against the Motion they will be ensuring that the private tenants will have their rents increased without the protection of a rent rebate scheme.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Nonsense.

Mr. Taylor: It is not nonsense. I could introduce the hon. Gentleman to many families in my constituency whose


rents are being put up at present under the Labour Government's legislation, under which there is no rebate scheme. But there is a rebate scheme in the Bill.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: This has nothing to do with the Motion.

Mr. Taylor: It has everything to do with the Motion. The hon. Gentleman knows that if he and his hon. Friends carry on as they have been doing in Committee, this Bill will not become law this session—

Mr. David Lambie: Hear, hear.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) is honest. We know that he wants to stop the Bill. We know that if he had been in the last Parliament he would have tried, being honest, to stop the 1969 Act. This is another example of the appalling split in the Opposition. One thing which terrifies me is that if we had by any terrible chance a Labour Government there would be a state of anarchy in the country because they would not be able to get a majority on any issue, with people like the hon. Member for Greenock pursuing a right-wing policy and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and others like him constantly driving the Labour Party further to the left, towards the kind of Socialist policy he would like. We have the middle of the road people like the hon. Member for Greenock—the élitists—who are trying to make a social democratic policy, and we have others like the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire trying to get a full Socialist policy. It is this which has been holding up the proceedings in Committee and why the Motion is necessary.
One of the main reasons why the Motion is necessary and why we have to have so many such Motions is that, instead of discussing in Committee the real issues on Bills, we are constantly having the appalling and—to a true democrat—terrifying and perplexing spectacle of a constant cleavage and bickering between what one might call the left-wing of the Labour Party and the élitists of the party. We have intellectuals like the hon. Member for Greenock constantly putting forward one point of view and traditional Socialists like the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire putting forward another

point of view. Instead of one Opposition, we have to deal with two. They are not only trying to fight the Conservative Government but each other. This is why we have to have the Motion.
I believe that, if we did not have this ideological cleavage in the Labour Party, we would have been able to get the Bill through, and many others, with no wasting of time but dealt with properly and expeditiously. We would not have needed a guillotine. I do not like the guillotine but so long as we have this terrible ideological clash in the Labour Party we will probably have to have the guillotine on almost every Bill. The hon. Member for Greenock could do something about it. If he and his hon. Friends could get together, in a Committee room upstairs, a meeting of back bench and Front Bench Labour Members, perhaps they could achieve a common Labour Party policy.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, who has just come back to the Chamber, could play a great part in this, because he has the seniority, the knowledge, the wisdom and the experience, having been here for many years. If he and his colleagues could get a Labour Party policy for housing, sound broadcasting or defence, we could get on with our legislation.
But in this Committee, every time that the right hon. Member for Greenock opens his mouth, he is constantly interrupted by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and others trying to put forward what they regard as the real, "auld licht" Labour policies. That is why our debates upstairs have not been as constructive as they should have been. That is why, although I regret it, we need this guillotine Motion. But so long as this dreadful situation continues in the Labour Party, a situation which is not good for democracy, we will have to have guillotines—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Greenock will have to face this. If, instead of trying to shout at me and at his hon. Friends the Members for Central Ayshire, and Dundee, West (Mr. Doig), he tried to find some way to smooth over the differences in the Labour Party, we could avoid this Motion and many others.
Without this Motion, our policy on council rents will not go through and the existing situation will remain. I have been appalled and perplexed to hear hon. Members opposite saying, "We do not


want this Bill, we do not want the 50p per week per year rise in council rents until they become economic. The Labour Party is against it and will stop it." But we do not know the view of the party opposite.
If the Bill becomes law, will they bring down rents? [Hon. Members: "Yes."] There again we see it—the hon. Members for Central Ayrshire, and for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) say, "Yes," and there is stony silence from the Front Bench. Here again, the élitists are saying "We will carry on with the rent increases," and the "auld licht" Socialists, the men of the people, say, "We will not have any increases."

Mr. MacArthur: We also have the evidence of their performance in office.

Mr. Taylor: That is the thing. I have the pleasure of representing not only a large number of private tenants but also a large number of council and S.S.H.A. tenants. They know that the Labour Party in office had its own Government council houses, those of the Scottish Special Housing Association. The rents for those houses went up year after year as a direct result of directives pouring out from the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock. He told the Chairman of the S.S.H.A. to raise rents.
We did not hear him do so, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie protested very effectively behind the scenes. I am sure that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, as a leading member of the Scottish Labour Party, said very effectively behind the scenes, "You must not do this". But they did. They put up the rents of the new towns and of the S.S.H.A. houses time after time. Will a Labour Government again say that the S.S.H.A. rents and the new town rents will rise, but that council rents will not? That is not a policy, and it would not be pursued by the party opposite.
My own tenants are concerned about this. I know that the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing) also represents S.S.H.A. tenants. In Toryglen, a highly appropriately-named area in my constituency, there is a large number of council and S.S.H.A. tenants. S.S.H.A. rents were higher than council

rents, since they were fixed by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, the Labour Secretary of State, while the council rents were fixed by a Labour and later by a Conservative Council. These tenants asked where the Labour Party stood on rents, and I am sure that they are still asking.
Without the Bill, we will have no consistency or agreement about a fair level of rents for council and S.S.H.A. tenants. The rate burden in Glasgow and other cities will continue to rise substantially. If we can make progress on this Bill, I hope that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will reform local Government finance. The rating system is creaking in every way. Of course it is unjust, and I hope that we can change it, but so long as we have it, we have this substantial burden shared by every ratepayer—and the burden of housing deficits is growing all the time.
As a result partly of the increased aid which will be coming from the Government and also as a result of changes in rents, we will be able to reduce this burden. This will help everyone—council tenant and owner-occupier alike. Otherwise, we will not have our rent rebate subsidy and local councils will have to carry the entire cost of their existing rebate schemes.
Like all Bills which involve increases in costs, this Bill is unpopular with some people. It is open to misinterpretation. I am afraid that that is why our proceedings have taken so long: the Bill has been misinterpreted and distorted. But I hope that hon. Members opposite will realise for once that this Bill is sensible, because it means that no one in Scotland will be asked to pay a rent he cannot afford. This is a great step forward.
I hope that hon. Members will try to resolve their cleavages and differences and that they will come back to the Committee determined to discuss, in a fair-minded, practical and responsible way, this very important Bill affecting many of our own constituents, many of the people of Scotland. But I fear that, even despite this Motion, we will still have unfair opposition, constant bickering and battling in the party opposite. But I hope, instead, for constructive and united opposition.
Some of my hon. Friends, who have patiently sat through these Committee debates day by day, showing great responsibility, have found it very distressing to witness the destruction of a great party taking place on the benches opposite. We have not had discussions on housing or rents. We have simply had the self-destruction of what was once a great Scottish and British party.
Let us get on with the Bill. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite resolve their differences and let us have united opposition. I do not know whether we ever will have it, but if the Motion can play some part in it, it will be a job well done.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. David Lambie: I am grateful for the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor). I should first like to congratulate the Lord President, and also the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lt.-Colonel Colin Mitchell) on his first big important job in the House. When I saw him getting his orders from the Whip to search the tea rooms and smoking rooms for extra speakers I thought that he must be looking back with some nostalgia on his days in Aden, when he could order the troops and guns and tanks into the Arab quarters to sort out the battles. He will find greater difficulty in sorting the troops and the Arabs here, especially from the smoke rooms in the later hours of the night.
The hon. Member for Cathcart has spoken for more than 25 minutes and has done nothing but criticise me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kil-marnock (Mr. Ross) and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon).
We in the Labour Party like discussion and debate, but at the end of the day we accept the majority decision. I accept the policy of the Labour Party as it is decided by the majority. If the hon. Member for Cathcart had showed the same loyalty to the Conservative Party he would still have been in the Government. If there is any hon. Member who can ride two horses at one time in this circus it is the hon. Member for Cathcart—

Mr. Edward Taylor: As the hon. Gentleman is so knowledgeable, will he tell

me what is the Labour Party's policy on council rents? Will the Labour Party bring rents down again, or not?

Mr. Lambie: I do not want to be ruled out of order by moving away from the question under discussion.
When I read my Sunday Mail last Sunday I was nearly crying about the drastic increases being imposed on some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I was interested to know what he would do about it. Up in Glasgow he is a Socialist. It is hard to get to the left of him. When he goes into Castle milk he is against rent increases, but in Tory areas he is in favour of rent increases and against rate increases. He has a different policy according to the area he is in. No hon. Member can gauge the political complexion of an area more quickly than the hon. Member for Cathcart. He is even interested in developments at Hunterston now, but at the time I wanted to get a policy statement on Hunterston from the Government when he was a Scottish Minister he was not at all interested in the developments at Hunterston. He will get his just, deserts in the next General Election. The number of Tory supporters in Scotland is very low, and he will be one of the 23 Conservative Members representing Scottish constituencies who will lose his seat.
The Lord President said that the Government have the right to get their legislation through Parliament. As a democrat I accept that, with the qualification that that applies only when the Government have a mandate for the legislation. The Government have no mandate from Scotland for this type of legislation. The Scottish people at the last General Election voted overwhelmingly against the Government's policy.
The Government have recognised the difference between Scotland and England by publishing two Bills, one for England and Wales and one for Scotland, and rightly so. The housing conditions in Scotland are totally different from those in England and Wales. In Scotland 80 per cent. of the people live in tenanted property and are directly affected by the Bill. In England and Wales more than half of the people are owner-occupiers. The Government between now and 1975–76 are phasing into Scotland the conditions that will prevail from October of this year


in England and Wales. Conditions in Scotland are different, and that is why I object to the guillotine Motion.
I have been consistent in my objection. When the Scottish Standing Committee discussed the first Sittings Motion I wanted the Committee to meet once a month and not twice a week. I wanted time to consult the local authorities within my constituency. Everyone in Scotland, including local councillors, has been brainwashed by the Government's propaganda into believing that the Bill is a good Bill. There have been programmes on television and radio and newspaper article after newspaper article telling us that for the first time the Government will help tenants. We heard this today from the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur). But the main aim of the Bill is to spend more money. We have been told that the main aim of the Bill is to reduce the rates—

Mr. MacArthur: The two go together.

Mr. Lambie: They do not go together. Until recently the Scottish people have been brainwashed by this barrage of propaganda, but now things are changing. During the weekend I attended two meetings, one in Irvine Newtown and the other in Stewart on in Ayrshire. We used to think as politicians that people would no longer come to public meetings now that they had television, but we are seeing a revival of public meetings and they are being attended by large numbers of people. The people of Scotland, because of the discussions in the Scottish Standing Committee, are beginning to realise that the Bill is not a Bill to enable the Government to spend more money but a Bill to increase rents for private tenants and council tenants.
We need more time, because there are many suspect Clauses. Only today when the Committee was discussing the Schedule dealing with rent rebate schemes we discovered that if a son or daughter has a salary higher than the parent's salary that son or daughter will be deemed to be the tenant of the house and any application for a rent rebate will not be based on the income of the tenant as it has been until now but on the income of the son or daughter who is deemed to be the tenant. This is a

reversal to the means test policies of the hungry 1930s when sons and daughters were forced to move from their parents' house to allow their parents to qualify for the maximum benefit. All my hon. Friends must know the suffering which was caused to families when officially sons and daughters were forced to move but unofficially they remained within the house. To justify an allowance it was necessary to bring the means test man into the house to search out the sons and daughters.
The Under-Secretary of State said this morning that we were too concerned about this and that we need not worry because the Government Ministers were all responsible men. If we were dealing with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock or my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock I could accept that, but we are dealing with diehard Tories who do not look with favour on the people whom I represent. We are dealing with the most reactionary Tory Government this century. We must look at each piece of legislation as it will be applied by diehard Tories, and not by sensible Labour representatives.
There is another provision in the rent rebate scheme which we have not yet reached in Committee and which relates to Schedule 2. Let us take the example of a couple who have lived in a house for 30 or 40 years and who have reared a family there. They consider that dwelling as a family house. However, when the sons and daughters grow up and marry, the old couple are left in occupation of that four or five-roomed house. If their rent is increased as under the Bill it undoubtedly will be, that couple will not qualify for rent rebate because it will be considered that the house is under-occupied. The couple are likely to be told that all they need is a two- or three-roomed house for their present needs.
It is strange to observe the attitude of the Tories when dealing with the needs of working people as opposed to their attitude when dealing with the needs of others. When the Under-Secretary of State opens a housing development in his constituency, involving properties going at £20,000 and comprising 10 or 12 rooms for use perhaps by one couple, that is regarded by the Conservatives as good business. Furthermore,


those owners will receive income tax relief. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Mother well (Mr. Lawson) said that on the present standard rate of income tax such owners would receive over £6 a week in tax remission. In such a case there will be no question of their being asked about the size of the house or about the number of people occupying it. However, when it comes to working people who occupy a four-roomed house, on which perhaps money has been spent over the years on modernisation, they are told to get out of that property into a smaller house and are not given a rebate.
For all these reasons we need more time to discuss the Bill's implications. We might lose in Standing Committee because there is a built-in Tory majority of two. And we shall soon be seeing hordes of English Members flooding into the Chamber at 7 o'clock having been summoned from the various tea bars and smoking rooms, and again we shall be defeated.

Mr. MacArthur: Since we are a little confused about who speaks for Labour, would the hon. Gentleman make clear whether it is the Labour Party's intention to abolish tax relief on mortgages and on expenditure on house improvements?

Mr. Lambie: I am dealing with the point which I was trying to develop. The hon. Member will have plenty of opportunity in the Standing Committee, if he decides to attend it, to ask me such questions and I will attempt to answer them.

Mr. MacArthur: What is Labour's policy on this?

Mr. Lambie: The Labour Government's policy was to help all sections of the population, whether owner-occupiers or tenants. As I was saying, although we might lose Divisions both in Standing Committee and in the House, we shall not lose in Scotland. Following the results of the municipal elections on the first Tuesday in May, hardly a Tory councillor will be left in the central industrial belt of Scotland. Indeed in the Cathcart constituency no Tory councillor will be left.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend will no doubt appreciate that even in the constituency of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) four

Tories have decided not to seek re-election.

Mr. Lambie: I believe they have a good deal of sense to take such a decision. We shall win the local elections on the first Tuesday in May. If that is not sufficient to make the Government change their policy on this Bill, and indeed to withdraw it, the people of Scotland will have to take some other action. The work people and trade unionists of Scotland will not see their standard of living reduced by increases in their rents and at the same time will not wish to see the Government seeking to enforce a wages norm. If the Government are concerned about inflation and wage increases, they must be concerned about rent increases

Mr. MacArthur: rose—

Mr. Lambie: I will not give way again to the hon. Gentleman. If the Government want to see unrest in every area of Scotland, then let them go ahead with the Bill. But if they want a period of peace to consolidate the policies they are said to believe in, then they should withdraw the Bill and be fair to 80 per cent. of the people of Scotland. If they seek to pursue such methods as this guillotine Motion, then they are only leading for trouble in the streets of Scotland.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: I am delighted that I have been called to speak in this debate following the speech of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), who at least has the merit of having been consistent, in direct contrast to many Members on his side. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's attitude shines out like a good deed in a naughty world. He said that the Labour Government's policy was to help all sections of the community. I wish he had gone on to explain why the tenants of privately rented accommodation were not included in that category, because they got no help from the Labour Government.

Mr. Lambie: The only reason the Labour Government did not need to help tenants of private properties in Scotland was that they did not need rent rebates. The average standard rent in the controlled sector of private property in Scotland was £16 per year, and on such a rent it is hardly necessary to have a rent rebate. Such houses are now being rented at £250 to £300 a year. This is


why rent rebates are now needed. In the private sector the Labour Government carried out the policy which we have already tried to carry out in the town of Saltcoats.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I did not know the hon. Gentleman was going to make a second speech. He should have listened more carefully to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), who mentioned the effects of the 1969 housing legislation. Had the hon. Gentleman been in the House at the time I am sure that, in view of his well-known consistency, he would have voted against that legislation. However, he was not in the House in those days and we did not have the pleasure of watching that experience.
The hon. Gentleman was somewhat mystified by the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) that more money would be spent under the Bill's provisions. The hon. Gentleman failed to see how one could combine that suggestion with lower rates. Of course it would be impossible to combine if rate income were the only source of money for housing finance. The point my hon. Friend was making quite clearly, however, was that there would be a very large increase in the Exchequer contribution, which is the other element in housing finance. Therefore the two decisions are perfectly consistent, as I think the hon. Member will realise if he studies the matter a bit more closely.
I should like to join in the welcome which several hon. Members on both sides of the House have given to my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council on his appointment. I think we all recognise that the reputation he has built up since June, 1970, in his previous appointment gives us every reason for full confidence in his ability to discharge his new responsibilities with a due sense of fairness towards both sides of the House. I am sure we all wish him all good fortune in the duties that have fallen to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart explained very clearly, I thought, several of the reasons for this guillotine Motion. He drew particular attention to the problem of cleavage. I

am slightly concerned about this and I want to ask him about it afterwards. What concerns me is the question of presentation: if it is a problem of cleavage, how does one present the body to deal with the cleavage from the point of view of the guillotine? I am sure he will be able to sort this out for me. He undoubtedly drew attention to one of the reasons for the Motion that we have before us this afternoon.
I thought that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was in his historical vein this afternoon, which is always very agreeable. We were promised by the Leader of the Opposition last week that there would be tremendous sound and fury this afternoon. We did not have very much of that from the right hon. Gentleman, and that is very understandable because the reasons for the need to introduce the guillotine are fairly clear.
In the first place it is worth speculating what action in housing the party opposite would have taken if the country had been unwise enough to elect it as the Government at the last election. I believe it would have been found that as far as Scotland was concerned we would have had proposals which did not differ vastly from the legislation at present before us. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire would have been deeply disappointed, and perhaps bitterly opposed, but I think that is the sort of legislation we could have expected because the dilemma of housing finance in Scotland is broadly summed up by the existence of a situation in which, as the hon. Gentleman knows so well, there is an average level of council house rents in the Borough of Saltcoats of about the cost of two packets of cigarettes a week, while at the other end of the scale private landlords, elderly people and pensioners, in my constituency have single properties, newly built just before the war with all mod. con, which they are expected to maintain in a decent condition on a similar rent of the equivalent of two packets of cigarettes a week. Of course it cannot be done.
The third element in the housing situation which I understand the Bill is designed to remedy—and not before time, as I believe hon. Members on both sides


of the House recognise—is the situation whereby the need to finance the deficits on housing revenue accounts pushes up the rate burden in the centres of our big cities to such an extent that industry and commerce are driven away, sometimes to areas in the South where the rate levels in the centres of the big cities are much lower. In my view, this background is one of the things that explains why we hardly had the sound and fury from the right hon. Gentleman that we had been led to expect in the trailer offered by the Leader of the Opposition last week.
I believe that the real reason behind the need for this guillotine today is that it was demanded by the English colleagues of hon. Gentlemen opposite who felt that in some sense their Scottish colleagues, for very good reason, did not have their heart in the operation the parallel of which they reckoned they were themselves conducting south of the Border. My right hon. Friend in his opening remarks referred to the attempt to arrive at a voluntary timetable. I submit that if it had not been for the pressures from south of the Border on the Opposition side of the House we should have had such an agreement, but any thought of such an agreement was anathema to the hon. Members opposite from south of the Border and therefore they were told that it could not be done.
I think we all know that there is invariably a great deal of hypocrisy uttered on occasions of guillotine Motions. None of us particularly likes having to secure the passage of a guillotine Motion through the House and it is invariably the subject of a great deal of hypocritical oratory. We have had a fair share of that this afternoon. I hope we shall soon come to an end of it. All I would say is that I am not surprised that this debate has lacked some of the excitement and fury that we were promised only a week ago.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: After the speech from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) I was almost at the stage of revising the old adage that one volunteer is worth two pressed men because he was pressed into the breach to fill up time for his side of the House—and he did a remarkably good job. But the speech of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) confirmed

the rule that a volunteer is worth two pressed men because if ever there was a speech from a pressed man, that was it.
Many hon. Members have paid tribute to the Lord President of the Council and welcomed him in his new post. Some of this may have been normal parliamentary courtesy—I do not know; but I wonder whether it is perhaps significant that, having come from his previous job where his first objective was to curtail the power of the trade unions, the right hon. Gentleman now has it as his first job as Lord President to curtail discussion on the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. But perhaps I read too much into the coincidence—and perhaps not.
The right hon. Gentleman made some rather extraordinary remarks. He suggested, for example, that we could have as many sittings as we liked once this guillotine or timetable Motion was through. All we had to do was get together through what are called, I think, the usual channels and all would be well. That would be very nice. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to study the proceedings of the Committee upstairs he would have found that there has been the greatest difficulty in keeping his own side there. Time and time again it has been necessary for the Government Whip to go outside and drum people up in order to keep the quorum. There may have been some light-hearted banter aimed at Opposition Members for leaving the Committee, but it is not our duty to keep the Committee in being; it is the Government's responsibility to see that there is a quorum in order to get the Bill through.
If, as the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur)—who I am sorry is not in his place—says, the Government want the Bill, why the reluctance of Government back benchers to be present in the Committee? Why the reluctance today of Government back benchers to stand up for their Government and for the Bill? Why, when we had Second Reading, did we have the very same problem? Why, when we discussed the White Paper in the Scottish Grand Committee, was it very difficult to get Government back benchers to speak? The truth—and this is why the Government are bringing forward this Motion—is that Government back


benchers do not give a damn. They are not concerned one way or the other whether the Bill goes through. That is why it is necessary to press this Motion—

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: If the hon. Gentleman is really interested in having answers to his questions and if they are not simply rhetorical, I can tell him that the real reason is that we are bored to death listening to his speeches.

Mr. Hughes: Then there must be a split in the party opposite. Without wishing to appear immodest, perhaps I might point out to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hill head (Mr. Galbraith) that his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on a number of occasions has complimented me and other hon. Members on my side of the Committee for the quality of our speeches and the thoughtful manner in which we have presented them. The hon. Gentleman has thanked the Opposition for moving Amendments. On several occasions he has referred to the interesting debates that we have had. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's courteous remarks show that behind his bland exterior there lurks the true Tory that we always knew existed. To begin with, we were almost inclined to believe the hon. Gentleman. However, our belief in him has been dashed to the ground. We know now that what he says is all soporific nonsense.
The Lord President of the Council should appreciate what is happening under the Bill. The whole legislation from 1919 onwards is being examined. In Schedule 1 and Schedule 11 we find that something like 34 Acts are being repealed in whole or in part and something like 36 different pieces of legislation giving subsidies to build houses are all being changed and replaced. It is necessary to have lengthy discussions in an attempt to find out what is behind the Government's proposals.
Whatever right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite may say, we are not getting answers to our questions. For example, the Government have not told us how much they intend to spend on housing in Scotland this year, next year or the year after.
I am not sure how much time remains to me. I do not wish to disturb the usual

channels too much and to remove from my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) and the Under-Secretary the right of reply. However, perhaps I might confine myself in the time remaining to giving what I believe to be the reason why the Government have now moved their Motion. In my view, it has nothing to do with the time. It is that we are now reaching the stage in the Bill where the truth will out. The early part of the Bill showed subsidies. Now we are coming to that part of it which deals with the determination of rents and the method by which rent rebates and allowances will be operated. The truth is beginning to come out. Because we are beginning to get at the truth, the Government are running away. That is why they have introduced this Motion. I hope they do not think that they can get away with this, because we shall fight them at every opportunity.

6.24 p.m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, in line 4, to leave out '27th day of April' and insert '18th day of May'.
We on this side of the House have confined ourselves to short speeches making pertinent points against the Motion. That contrasts vividly with the lengthy, cumbersome and repetitive speeches we have heard from the Government benches. That in itself bears witness to what would have happened in Committee if hon. Members opposite had participated. However, most of the argument has been confined to Opposition Members and the Minister. Other hon Members opposite have participated only rarely. It has been left to Opposition Members to move the only constructive Amendments to the Bill.
I join in the congratulations offered to the new Leader of the House. May I point out to him, however, that the best test of a Committee is whether it is by synthesis making a better Bill? We have managed to do that on only three occasions, and they have been the result of the joint efforts of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
Unfortunately, at the beginning of our proceedings, we were put off by the Minister's attitude towards us. Throughout the proceedings on the Bill we have been cursed with novices. The Leader of


the House is himself a novice in this matter. He has just assumed the office of Leader of the House and he inherited the present situation. However, I cannot understand why he was not able to respond to the two Opposition Amendments on the Order Paper. We were not told why the first Amendment was not reasonable. The Leader of the House spent time telling us that he wanted a voluntary timetable of reasonable duration. What is unreasonable about 16th May as opposed to the end of April? He did not even give us the courtesy of a reply.
What about the second Amendment, which asks for three days on Report? Again, nothing was said by the Leader of the House about it. Is it unreasonable to ask for three days on Report? This is a fundamental Bill. It is just as fundamental as the English Bill. Yet the English Bill's Report stage is given more time. I gave notice of our second Amendment on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends last Thursday, when I said that we should want three days on Report. Again the Leader of the House, no doubt because he is a new arrival, has made no comment. So we are treated badly.
When the right hon. Gentleman was appointed Leader of the House, I thought we should see an attempt to call off this Motion and that perhaps negotiations would be reopened through the usual channels. I see no reason why we have to persist with the Motion. There is no reason why we should not discuss a timetable and see how far we can get. I agree that the Government are entitled to get their Bill. All Government's are entitled to get their Bills. Equally, the Opposition are entitled to ask for and to get proper consideration of the time for discussion.
Putting aside Clause 1, which is an introductory, paving Clause, the initial Clauses in the Bill are vitally important. No one can deny, for example, that Clause 2 is vitally important. It represents £55 million. At the end of the time of the Bill is represents £75 million according to the rising level of subsidies, thanks to the structure of the subsidies created over the last 40 years which have added very year to the rise in subsidies in Scotland. Why should not we take a long time discussing what is the

critical Clause of the Bill wiping out these subsidies?
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) warned us earlier that there will be many more Motions like the present one. He said that there would be a similar Motion on every Bill if the Opposition did not behave themselves. That, of course, depends on one's standards of behaviour. But no doubt the National Health Service (Scotland) Bill will be the next one. If the Leader of the House is to bring forward other Motions of this sort, he will have to make a qualitative as well as a quantitative assessment of the number of Clauses dealt with before doing so. I am sure he will accept that. After all, he is an intelligent man.
We have had our ups and downs in Committee. We have witnessesd the activities of the dormouse, the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), who was again active today. He appears to suffer from some ear, nose and throat complaint. His explosions in Committee consistently distracted us from our duties.
The hon. Member for Cathcart has been guilty of extremely bad-mannered behaviour in the Committee. In the view of many hon. Members, he should have been expelled from the Committee on a number of occasions for the way he behaved. I thought that his manners today were deplorable. He did not hear the opening speeches. He made the longest speech in the debate and in that time he managed not to understand what the debate was about. He gave a long history of previous Acts, omitting parts which did not please him.
The hon. Gentleman never reads reports. He finds them embarrassing. However, perhaps I might point out to him that the Francis Committee pointed out on page 180 of its report, dealing with the level of registered rents, that the experience of the Committee up to the time that the report was published was that
The average increase for the whole of Scotland was £14, being lowest in Glasgow (£11) and highest in the Highlands and Islands (£26).
These are not the figures that we are discussing today. Now that these matters have been swept away, these figures of


rises in rents to the controlled and registered sector of private housing will go up enormously.
We on this side have been accused by the hon. Member for Cathcart of creating alarm and despondency all over Scotland. It is extraordinary how one can create such alarm and despondency and yet be told by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) that this is the most popular Bill that any Government have ever produced. It is remarkable that in the same debate their two best debaters—admittedly it is a small team, but they are the best on their side—should get up and proclaim that the Bill, thanks to our machinations and wickedness, is unpopular. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire told us that Scotland wants the Bill. We had the MacArthur tones ringing through the House and down the glens," Scotland wants the Bill".
All I can say is that when the people of Scotland understand the Bill, they will hit back at those who have sought to impose it upon them. It will be the Rent Act, 1957, all over again. The party opposite will race like mad when election time gets near to ameliorate the rent increases which will come out of the Bill. Our case, which we have been denied pursuing in Committee to get a series of Amendments to the fair rents system, will have to be conceded.
The Leader of the House does not know of our proceedings. He is a novice Leader, and we have a novice Minister and a novice Whip. The novice Whip believed in the rule one, two, three: proposer, Minister's reply, move the closure. The hon. Gentleman did that five times. No wonder I became ill. I could not believe it. However, there was obviously a change of heart. The hon. Gentleman got to know the procedure and realised that somebody else was entitled to speak apart from the proposer, the Minister's reply and the closure. At that stage we got some sense. The novice Whip has become seasoned. However, the novice Minister's manner is on the record for all to see. At the beginning his manner was really cavalier. Only now is he beginning to realise that if he wants his Bill he has to bend to the views of the Committee, to the idiosyncrasies of

different Members, and to the mood of the moment, and to listen to the general feeling in Committee rather than to his own preferences dictated by his own activity. The Leader of the House must know that we have been cursed by these matters all the time.
When arguing on the guillotine Motion we are bound to talk about the substance of the matter, but on the Bill we are faced with immense contradictions in the matters put before us. The Bill is apiece of flotsam, as the Leader of the House knows, washed up from the mini-Budget of 1970. It is a save-money Bill. The Minister—he made a speech on Saturday—rejoices in saying that the Bill will vote more money. However, the basic point of the Bill is to cut the housing commitment, not only in relative but in absolute terms, in housing investment in Scotland.
My authority for that is no less a distinguished person than the Secretary of State for Scotland, who, speaking in the Scottish Grand Committee on 27th July, 1971, said,
If I may make clear what I have said already"—
that shows that he has not—

Mr. Ross: Crystal clear.

Dr. Mabon: Yes, crystal clear—
what we are intending to do is redirect the money which is coming from the taxpayer, from the Government, to Scotland, and not to reduce it.
That was one statement. Now comes the big bit:
As I said, it is likely to be increased in the next few years "—
that is quite true—
but had the present system of subsidies continued"—
Clause 2—
it would have escalated into enormous figures which I believe no Government, of any colour, could have continued to bear."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee: 27th July. 1971, c 17.]
The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to that belief, but he is admitting that if Clause 2 were not in the Bill and if the Bill were not cast as it is the figures would be too enormous to bear. In other words, when the period of the Bill is over, we shall see the housing subsidies from the public purse going down.

Mr. MacArthur: No.

Dr. Mabon: Yes, after the period of the Bill.

Mr. MacArthur: No.

Dr. Mabon: Yes, unless the right hon. Gentleman wishes to unsay himself.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): The hon. Gentleman read out precisely what I said and then read into it a completely different interpretation.

Dr. Mabon: I will read it again;
…but had the present system of subsidies continued"—
these 15 subsidies sustained by the Acts of Parliament which my right hon. Friend showed the House today—
it would have escalated into enormous figures which I believe no Government, of any colour, could have continued to bear.
The right hon. Gentleman must realise that the value of money deteriorates. Surely he knows that has occurred under every Government since the time of Elizabeth I, so let us not argue about that. In real terms, we must judge one year's figures against another. In real terms this subsidy is going down. That is why I find it incredible that we should have a guillotine Motion and the Bill after the Chancellor's speech. The Chancellor made a proposal which was acceptable in all quarters of the House. It was the most popular proposal in the whole country. I refer to the proposal dealing with personal direct taxation. The right hon. Gentleman reminded us that our income tax system had got into such a state and our numerous subsidies and means tests, now numbering 43, of which this is the forty-fourth, should be married together and some sanity brought into the regions where the two systems exist side by side. The right hon. Gentleman said:
…we have two systems existing side by side—a taxation system which embodies a set of reliefs and allowances based on one set of principles, and a social security system which embodies a different set of benefits and allowances based on a different set of principles."—[Official Report, 21st March, 1972; Vol. 833, c. 1383.]
This is a matter on which the House of Commons agrees. The Select Committee is agreed by both sides. It was welcomed by the Opposition when the Chancellor proposed it. I hope that the House of Commons will deal with it man-

fully. Why, then, do we have to debate other means tests? Why cannot we get on with this proposal? Why cannot we withdraw the Bill and get on with the wider issue dealing with housing expenditure? After all, this is supposed to be a Bill to save Scotland's housing. That is what the hon. Member for Perth and East Pet shire said. Are we having more houses built in Scotland today? The numbers are going down.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: There have been more starts.

Dr. Mabon: The programme has fallen by one-third. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the figures for the first quarter of this year he will see that they are going down. The Bill and all that it represents will not get us more houses.
The Leader of the House should think again. He may not be able to withdraw the Motion now. However, I ask him to accept one or both of our Amendments at this stage. If he accepts one or both of them, it will be a real gesture towards getting the rest of the Bill through in a properly debated manner such as it deserves because, bad as the Bill is, it certainly deserves full examination.

6.38 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) in his usual inimitable fashion has told us the good news and made clear that he is once more back in good form. We are glad to see him back after his illness for such a long section of the Committee stage. He seemed to be in good form today. He is so anxious to maintain his rather precarious perch on the Opposition Front Bench that he seemed at times to be more like a linnet sitting up there and singing his way, he hopes, to better things. [Interruption.] "Cheep" is perhaps the right comment.
The hon. Gentleman asked us to consider the first of his two Amendments. I should like to start by echoing what my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council said at the beginning of the debate. I really think that, by any standards, the conduct of the Government in patiently waiting for the slowness of the first stages of the Bill has made the arguments against a guillotine extremely thin


indeed. It is a wonder that the Government and my right hon. and hon. Friends have had the patience not to introduce a timetable Motion long ago.
We have sat in Committee and have listened Tuesday after Tuesday and Thursday after Thursday to a lot of speeches. Many of them covered the same ground as the previous speaker in a rather different way, and repeated points which were dealt with earlier. We have bent over backwards on the Government side of the Committee to give the utmost rope to hon. Gentlemen opposite to make the most they could of what they feel is the most important task of opposing the Bill. When the figures are looked at, to accept this Amendment and add another long section, which I calculate to be nine more days of debate, and a further goodness knows how many hours, would be gilding the lily.
When we think of the previous Scottish Bills we have had in recent years and see the time that has been taken for them, it will be seen that the present Government has bent over backwards to be fair. There was the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill in 1969, during the time in office of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). That had 106 Clauses and ten Schedules, a considerably greater number of Clauses and Schedules than we have in this Bill. That was completed in 11 sittings because the Opposition took a constructive attitude and debated it sensibly throughout.
The Housing (Scotland) Bill in 1968–69 had 70 Clauses—very nearly as many as we have in this Bill—and seven Schedules. That was completed in six sittings because the Opposition of the day discussed it sensibly and constructively throughout its passage in Committee. The Social Work (Scotland) Bill, a most important and wide-ranging Measure in 1967, had 102 Clauses and eight Schedules and was completed in 13 sittings.
With this Bill we have sat through 26 sittings in the Committee stage. [An Hon. Member: "Twenty-seven sittings."] Including today's sitting, we will make it 27. For a Bill which has 70-odd Clauses plus a number of Schedules, we have gone beyond what anyone could have asked us to do to be reasonable and fair to the

Opposition and give them a chance to make a job of the opposition to the Bill.
The reason we have come to this trouble with the opposition to the Bill is that hon. Gentlemen opposite have found that the only way opposition to the Bill works is if one leaves aside the facts and stick to rhetoric. It is grand with rhetoric. It is grand when people produce fine phrases. It all sounds lovely, until one comes down to the facts in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), who spoke this afternoon, covered a very wide field. He pointed out, as clearly as he did in the Standing Committee, the effect this will have on private tenants in Scotland. Private tenants, who get no rent allowances, now have to pay the full cost of fair rents being assessed on them under the legislation put through by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock in his time. Under this Bill they will get rent allowances for the first time. The party opposite would deny them those rent allowances and prevent them from getting them. I am sure everyone knows this very well indeed.
We have at least achieved something. We have shown and demonstrated to the House as a whole what we in the Committee have become very familiar with: that is, what it is like to be in a class under the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock. That has been an experience. He has practised all the schoolmaster's arts on us. He has wagged his finger at us. He has accused us of muttering. He took his own hon. Friends to task when they were speaking for saying the wrong things. There was hardly a sentence the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) could get out one day without having his coat-tail pulled and a growling intervention from his right hon. Friend. At one point the right hon. Gentleman the schoolmaster even threatened to send me out of the room.
We have had a picture of what life would be like in holy Willie's academy. He has had in the common room behind him a talented staff as well. There is the hon. Member for Mother well (Mr. Lawson), who is not here, obviously heading the classics department, with his stern and unbending devotion to the great truths of ancient history and so on. We have


the bouncing, ambitious second master to this academy, waiting for his chief to make way for him to take over, popular with all the pupils, governors and an absolute wow on parent's day. No mother can come to the school without having a chat with the second master and having things like that put right.
Then we have the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes). He must head the science department. He is a little inclined to be over-technical, a little inclined to disappear in a white coat and to conduct meaningless experiments, and appear in time for the Division. Nevertheless he is a valuable member.
Then there is the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), without whom no description of the party opposite is complete. He may be head of the geography department. His geography is pretty queer at times. If he did not indulge in his penchant for criticising the headmaster all the time, he might get on better in the school.
Finally, the most essential person in any school, posted strategically as always near the door—I do not see him here at the moment—is the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone). He must surely be the janitor, a job I am sure he does better than anybody else.

Mr. Ross: rose—

Mr. Younger: The House would not expect me to give way any further on that.
In considering this guillotine we have to bear in mind that there has not been any sense of urgency in getting on with the Bill from the party opposite during the Committee stage. When we started we discussed the first group of Amendments. We got on to those on the second sitting. After the long prolonged discussion on the sittings Motion, the right hon. Gentleman began moving his Amendments.
At the third sitting, at 10.40 a.m. just after it started, I rose and substantially accepted all that was in that group of Amendments. I said I would look at two of them. The other two I accepted straight off. I thought that was the way to get progress. That was at 10.40 a.m. At 1 o'clock we were still discussing that group of Amendments. That is the way

I was rewarded for trying to help the Opposition to get on with the Committee.

Mr. Ross: rose—

Mr. Younger: The headmaster cannot stop me speaking. I am allowed to make my speech just the same as he was.
The right hon. Gentleman said that I thanked him for his speeches. He started off the Committee stage by describing me as a master of the parliamentary arts. I thought that was overdoing it.
This guillotine Motion has been brought in very reluctantly by the Government. There are only two reasons why I think the Opposition must have felt it necessary to force us to this point. The first could be that they felt if they forced us to the guillotine, this was the only way they could make any impact on a Bill which was otherwise so complicated and which had a lot of discussion to it.
There is another reason, touched on by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North. Those of the party opposite who read this will have realised very quickly that successful opposition to it depended on not too much detail in the Bill seeing the light of day. That is why the party opposite have pushed this guillotine through—

Mr. McElhone: Nonsense!

Mr. Younger: —before we come to the point of discussing the vitally important details of the rebate scheme which will affect so many people in need in Scotland and at the point where we are going to discuss the precise details of the needs allowances and their effect on the tenants in privately rented property who get no help at present. At this point the party opposite succeeded in forcing us into a guillotine so that the Bill cannot be as properly discussed as it ought to be. I hoped I should never have to come to the Dispatch Box in this House and propose a guillotine Motion.
I must tell hon. Gentlemen opposite that, the Government having bent over backwards to help them make a good job of opposing the Bill, they have made a thorough shambles of their job and they ought to be ashamed of themselves. We have introduced this timetable Motion in order to bring the consideration of the Bill to a conclusion. Even those


in Scotland who are opposed to the principle of the Bill are begging us to get on with the job and complete it. If we get this timetable Motion through and get a sensible conclusion to the Commitee stage of the Bill we shall be thanked by everyone in Scotland, and particularly by those who will have to implement the Bill.
I am sorry we cannot accept the Amendment and that we must divide the House on it this afternoon, but we have

to bear in mind that this is legislation which we have put before the House and which the House has approved. It is our job to get the Bill through, and that we intend to do. The Motion is essential for that, and I ask the House to approve it this afternoon.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 287.

Division No. 114.]
AYES
[6.50 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Edelman, Maurice
Latham, Arthur


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lawson, George


Allen, Scholefield
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Leadbitter, Ted


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Ellis, Tom
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Armstrong, Ernest
English, Michael
Leonard, Dick


Ashley, Jack
Ewing, Harry
Lestor, Miss Joan


Ashton, Joe
Faulds, Andrew
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Atkinson, Norman
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Barnes, Michael
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lipton, Marcus


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lomas, Kenneth


Beaney, Alan
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Loughlin, Charles


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Foley, Maurice
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Bidwell, Sydney
Foot, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Bishop, E. S.
Ford, Ben
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Forrester, John
McCann, John


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McCartney, Hugh


Booth, Albert
Freeson, Reginald
McElhone, Frank


Bottomley. Rt. Hn. Arthur
Galpern, Sir Myer
McGuire, Michael


Bradley, Tom
Garrett, W. E.
Mackenzie, Gregor


Broughton. Sir Alfred
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mackie, John


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mackintosh, John P.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Golding, John
Maclennan, Robert


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Buchan, Norman
Gourlay, Harry
McNamara, J. Kevin


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Butler. Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mallalieu. J. P. W. (Huddersfield. E.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marks, Kenneth


Campbell. I. (Dunbartonshire. W.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Marquand, David


Cant, R. B.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marsden, F.


Carmichael, Neil
Hamling, William
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hardy, Peter
Mayhew, Christopher


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Meacher, Michael


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hattersley, Roy
Mendelson, John


Cohen, Stanley
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mikardo, Ian


Concannon, J. D.
Heffer, Eric S.
Millan, Bruce


Conlan, Bernard
Hilton, W. S.
Milne, Edward


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hooson, Emlyn
Mitchell, R.C. (S'hampton, Itchen


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Horam, John
Molloy, William


Crawshaw, Richard
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cronin, John
Huckfield, Leslie
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Moyle, Roland


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Cunningham. Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Murray, Ronald King


Dalyell, Tam
Hunter, Adam
Oakes, Gordon


Darling. Rt. Hn. George
Irvine, Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Kill)
Ogden, Eric


Davidson, Arthur
Janner, Greville
O'Halloran, Michael


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Malley, Brian


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oram, Bert


Deakins, Eric
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Orbach, Maurice


de Freitas. Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Orme, Stanley


Delargy, H. J.
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Oswald, Thomas


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Dempsey, James
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Padley, Walter


Doig, Peter
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Paget, R. T.


Dormand, J. D.
Judd, Frank
Palmer, Arthur


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kelley, Richard
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Driberg, Tom
Kerr, Russell
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Dunn, James A.
Lambie, David
Pendry, Tom


Dunnett, Jack
Lamond, James



Eadie, Alex






Pentland, Norman
Small, William
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Perry, Ernest G.
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Spearing, Nigel
Wallace, George


Prescott, John
Spriggs, Leslie
Watkins, David


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Stallard, A. W.
Weitzman, David


Price, William (Rugby)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Wellbeloved, James


Probert, Arthur
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Strang, Gavin
Whitehead, Phillip


Richard, Ivor
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Whitlock, William


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Swain, Thomas
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Roper, John
Taverne, Dick
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Rose, Paul B.
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff.W.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Sandelson, Neville
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Woof, Robert


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under Lyne)
Tinn, James



Short, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Tomney, Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Torney, Tom
Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. James Hamilton.


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Tuck, Raphael



Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Urwin, T. W.



Sillars, James
Varley, Eric G.



Skinner, Dennis
Wainwright, Edwin



NOES


Adley, Robert
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Heseltine, Michael


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hicks, Robert


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Dixon, Piers
Higgins, Terence L


Amery, Rt Hn. Julian
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hiley, Joseph


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Astor, John
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Atkins. Humphrey
Dykes, Hugh
Holland, Philip


Awdry, Daniel
Eden, Sir John
Holt, Miss Mary


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hordern, Peter


Baker. W. H. K. (Banff)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hornby, Richard


Batsford, Brian
Emery, Peter
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Eyre, Reginald
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Bell, Ronald
Farr, John
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fell, Anthony
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hunt, John


Benyon. W.
Fidler, Michael
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Biffen, John
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
James, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Blaker, Peter
Fookes, Miss Janet
Jessel, Toby


Boardman, Tom (Leicester. S.W.)
Fortescue, Tim
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Boscawen. Robert
Foster, Sir John
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fowler, Norman
Jopling, Michael


Bowden. Andrew
Fox, Marcus
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Braine, Bernard
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Kaberry. Sir Donald


Bray, Ronald
Fry, Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Brewis, John
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Kershaw, Anthony


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gardner, Edward
Kilfeddor, James


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gibson-Watt, David
Kimball, Marcus


Brown. Sir Edward (Bath)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gilmour. Sir John (Fife, E.)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Bryan, Paul
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Kinsey, J. R.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Goodhart, Philip
Kirk, Peter


Buck, Antony
Goodhew, Victor
Kitson, Timothy


Burden, F. A.
Gorst, John
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Campbell. Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Gower, Raymond
Knox, David


Carlisle, Mark
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Lambton, Antony


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gray, Hamish
Lane, David


Channon, Paul
Green, Alan
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Chapman, Sydney
Grieve, Percy
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Chataway. Rt. Hn. Christopher
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Grylls, Michael
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gummer, Selwyn
Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Cockeram, Eric
Gurden, Harold
Longden, Gilbert


Cooke, Robert
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Loveridge, John


Coombs, Derek
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Luce, R. N.


Cooper, A. E.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Cordle. John
Hannam, John (Exeter)
MacArthur, Ian


Corfield. Rt. Hn. Frederick
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
McCrindle, R. A.


Cormack, Patrick
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
McLaren, Martin


Costain. A. P.
Haselhurst, Alan
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Critchley, Julian
Havers, Michael
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Crouch, David
Hawkins, Paul
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Crowder. F. P.
Hay, John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hayhoe, Barney
Maddan, Martin


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj. -Gen. James
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward



Dean, Paul






Madel, David
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stuttatord, Dr. Tom


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Quennell, Miss J. M
Sutcliffe, John


Marten, Neil
Raison, Timothy
Tapsell, Peter


Mather, Carol
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Maude, Angus
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Redmond, Robert
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Mawby, Ray
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Tebbit, Norman


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Temple, John M.


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Miscampbell, Norman
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Tilney, John


Moate, Roger
Ridsdale, Julian
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Money, Ernle
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Trew, Peter


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Monro, Hector
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Montgomery, Fergus
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


More, Jasper
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Rost, Peter
Vickers, Dame Joan


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Royle, Anthony
Waddington, David


Mudd, David
Russell, Sir Ronald
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Murton, Oscar
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Neave, Airey
Scott, Nicholas
Ward, Dame Irene


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Sharples, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Normanton, Tom
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Nott, John
Shelton, William (Clapham)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Onslow, Cranley
Simeons, Charles
Wiggin, Jerry


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Sinclair, Sir George
Wilkinson, John


Osborn, John
Skeet, T. H. H.
Winterton, Nicholas


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Soref, Harold
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Speed, Keith
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Parkinson, Cecil
Spence, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Percival, Ian
Sproat, Iain
Worsley, Marcus


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Stainton, Keith
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Pink, R. Bonner
Stanbrook, Ivor
Younger, Hn. George


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)



Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and Mr. Walter Clegg.


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Stokes, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 287; Noes 250.

Division No. 115.]
AYES
[7.2 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Burden, F. A.
Eyre, Reginald


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Farr, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Carlisle, Mark
Fell, Anthony


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Channon, Paul
Fidler, Michael


Astor, John
Chapman, Sydney
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Atkins, Humphrey
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Awdry, Daniel
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Cockeram, Eric
Fortescue, Tim


Batsford, Brian
Cooke, Robert
Foster, Sir John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Coombs, Derek
Fowler, Norman


Bell, Ronald
Cooper, A. E.
Fox, Marcus


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Cordle, John
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Fry, Peter


Benyon, W.
Cormack, Patrick
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Costain, A. P.
Gardner, Edward


Biffen, John
Critchley, Julian
Gibson-Watt, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Crouch, David
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Blaker, Peter
Crowder, F. P.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Boscawen, Robert
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj. -Gen. James
Goodhart, Philip


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dean, Paul
Goodhew, Victor


Bowden, Andrew
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Gorst, John


Braine, Bernard
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Gower, Raymond


Bray, Ronald
Dixon, Piers
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Brewis, John
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Gray, Hamish


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Green, Alan


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Grieve, Percy


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dykes, Hugh
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Eden, Sir John
Grylls, Michael


Bryan, Paul
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gummer, Selwyn


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Gurden, Harold


Buck, Antony
Emery, Peter
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)




Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Royle, Anthony


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maddan, Martin
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Madel, David
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Marples Rt. Hn. Ernest
Scott, Nicholas


Haselhurst, Alan
Marten, Neil
Sharples, Richard


Havers, Michael
Mather, Carol
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hawkins, Paul
Maude, Angus
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Hay, John
Maudling, Rt Hn. Reginald
Simeons, Charles


Kayhoe, Barney
Mawby, Ray
Sinclair, Sir George


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Heseltine, Michael
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hicks, Robert
Miscampbell, Norman
Soref, Harold


Higgins, Terence L.
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire.W)
Speed, Keith


Hiley, Joseph
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Spence, John


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Moate, Roger
Sproat, Iain


Hill. James (Southampton, Test)
Money, Ernle
Stainton, Keith


Holland, Philip
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Stanbrook, Ivor


Holt, Miss Mary
Monro, Hector
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Hordern, Peter
Montgomery, Fergus
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hornby, Richard
More, Jasper
Stoddart-Scott Col. Sir M.


Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Stokes, John


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Howell, David (Guildford)
Mudd, David
Sutcliffe, John


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Murton, Oscar
Tapsell, Peter


Hunt, John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Neave, Airey
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Irvine. Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


James. David
Normanton, Tom
Tebbit, Norman


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Nott, John
Temple, John M.


Jessel, Toby
Onslow, Cranley
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Oppenheim. Mrs. Sally
Thomas John Stradling (Monmouth)


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Osborn, John
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon. S.)


Jopling, Michael
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Tilney, John


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Trew, Peter


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Parkinson, Cecil
Tugendhat, Christopher


Kershaw, Anthony
Percival, Ian
Turton, Rt. Hn Sir Robin


Kilfedder, James
Pike, Miss Mervyn
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kimball, Marcus
Pink, R Bonner
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


King. Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Vickers, Dame Joan


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Waddington, David


Kinsey, J. R.
Prior, Rt Hn. J. M. L.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Kirk, Peter
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Kitson, Timothy
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ouennell, Miss J. M.
Ward, Dame Irene


Knox, David
Raison, Timothy
Warren, Kenneth


Lambton, Antony
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lane, David
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Redmond, Robert
Wiggin, Jerry


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Wilkinson, John


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Winterton Nicholas


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rees-Davies. W. R.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Longden, Gilbert
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Loveridge. John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Woodnutt, Mark


Luce, R. N.
Ridsdale, Julian
Worsley, Marcus


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


MacArthur, Ian
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Younger, Hn. George


McCrindle, R. A.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)



McLaren, Martin
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and Mr. Walter Clegg.


Macmillan. Maurice (Farnham)
Rost, Peter



NOES


Albu, Austen
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Cohen, Stanley


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bradley, Tom
Concannon, J. D.


Allen, Scholefield
Broughton. Sir Alfred
Conlan, Bernard


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Ashley, Jack
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Crawshaw, Richard


Ashton, Joe
Buchan, Norman
Cronin, John


Atkinson, Norman
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Bagier, Gordon A. T
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)


Barnes, Michael
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dalyell, Tam


Beaney, Alan
Cant, R. B.
Darling, Rt. Hn. George


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Carmichael, Neil
Davidson, Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)


Bishop, E. S.
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Deakins, Eric


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Booth, Albert
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Delargy, Hugh







Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Judd, Frank
Pandry, Tom


Dempsey, James
Kaufman, Gerald
Pentland, Norman


Doig, Peter
Kelley, Richard
Perry, Ernest G.


Dormand, J. D.
Kerr, Russell
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lambie, David
Prescott, John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lamond, James
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Driberg, Tom
Latham, Arthur
Price, William (Rugby)


Dunn, James A.
Lawson, George
Probert, Arthur


Dunnett, Jack
Leadbitter, Ted
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Eadie, Alex
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Edelman, Maurice
Leonard, Dick
Richard, Ivor


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Ellis, Tom
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Roper, John


English, Michael
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rose, Paul B.


Ewing, Harry
Lipton, Marcus
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Faulds, Andrew
Lomas, Kenneth
Sandelson, Neville


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Loughlin, Charles
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McCann, John
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Foley, Maurice
McCartney, Hugh
Sillars, James


Foot, Michael
McElhone, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael
Small, William


Forrester, John
Mackenzie, Gregor
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackie, John
Spearing, Nigel


Freeson, Reginald
Mackintosh, John P.
Spriggs, Leslie


Galpern, Sir Myer
Maclennan, Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Garrett, W. E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Gilbert, Dr. John
McNamara, J. Kevin
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Golding, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Strang, Gavin


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Marks, Kenneth
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Gourlay, Harry
Marquand, David
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marsden, F.
Swain, Thomas


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Taverne, Dick


Griffiths. Eddie (Brightside)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Thomas, Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff,W.)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomas, Jeffrey, (Abertillery)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Meacher, Michael
Thomson. Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee. E.)


Hamling, William
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Tinn, James


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mendelson, John
Torney, Frank


Hardy, Peter
Mikardo, Ian
Torney, Tom


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce
Tuck, Raphael


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Milne, Edward
Urwin, T. W.


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Varley, Eric G.


Heffer, Eric S.
Molloy, William
Wainwright, Edwin


Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Hooson, Emlyn
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Horam, John
Moyle, Roland
Wallace, George


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Watkins, David


Huckfield. Leslie
Murray, Ronald King
Weitzman, David


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oakes, Gordon
Wellbeloved, James


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Ogden, Eric
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Halloran, Michael
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hunter, Adam
O'Malley, Brian
Whitehead. Phillip


Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Oram, Bert
Whitlock, William


Janner, Greville
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Padley, Walter
Wilson, William (Coventry. S.)


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Paget, R. T.
Woof, Robert


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Palmer, Arthur



Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Ponnell, Rt. Hn. Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. James Hamilton.



Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

Question accordingly agreed to.

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining Proceedings on the Bill:—



Committee



1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before the 27th day of April.


5
Report and Third Reading


10
2.—(1) The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Eleven o'clock on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the Proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

15
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their resolutions as to the Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and Proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.



(3) The resolutions in any report made under Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) may be varied by a further report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph, and whether or not the resolutions have been agreed to by the House.


20
Procedure in Standing Committee



3.—(1) At a Sitting of the Standing Committee at which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the Proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.


25
(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a Member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.


30
4. No Motion shall be made to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule, but the resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee.



Conclusion of Proceedings in Committee


35
5. On the conclusion of the Proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.



Dilatory motions



6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.


40
Extra time on allotted days



7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings on the Bill for one hour after Ten o'clock.


45
(2) Any period during which Proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the period under this paragraph.



Standing Order No. 13



8. Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of select committees at commencement of public business) shall not apply on an allotted day.


50
Private business


55
9. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill or, if those Proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the completion of those Proceedings.



Conclusion of Proceedings


60
10.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith proceed to put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—


65
(a) the Question or Questions already proposed from the Chair, or necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);


70
(b) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;



(c) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

75
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.


80
(3) If, at Seven o'clock on an allotted day, any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time have not been concluded, any Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) which, apart from this Order, would stand over to that time shall stand over until those Proceedings have been concluded.


85
(4) If, on an allotted day, a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over to Seven o'clock on an allotted day, or to any later time under sub-paragraph (3) above, the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day at any hour falling after the beginning of the Proceedings on that Motion shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.


90
Supplemental orders


95
11.—(1) The Proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and the last foregoing paragraph shall apply as if the Proceedings were Proceedings on the Bill on an allotted day.


100
(2) If any Motion moved by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order is under consideration at Seven o'clock on a day on which any private business has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock, the private business shall stand over and be considered when the Proceedings on the Motion have been concluded, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so standing over for a period equal to the time for which it so stands over.


105
(3) If on an allotted day on which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time, no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.



Saving


110
12. Nothing in this Order or in a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee or the Business Committee shall—



(a) prevent any Proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or


115
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.



Re-committal



13.—(1) References in this Order to Proceedings on Consideration or Proceedings on Third Reading include references to Proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.


120
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question



Interpretation


125
14. In this Order—



allotted day' means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day;



the Bill' means the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill;


130
'Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;



'Resolution of the Business Committee' means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Orders of the Day — SOUND BROADCASTING BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO NEWSPAPER SHAREHOLDINGS IN RELATION TO LOCAL SOUND BROADCASTS



(1) This section applies to any contract made between the Authority and a programme contractor, where the programme contractor is a body corporate and the contract requires local sound broadcasts to be provided by the contractor and to be transmitted from one or more stations specified in the contract.


5
(2) Subject to the next following section, before the Authority enter into a contract to which this section applies—


10
(a) they shall consider, in relation to the locality served or to be served by the station or stations to be specified in the contract (in this section referred to as 'the relevant locality'), whether there is any newspaper which circulates wholly or mainly in that locality and is a newspaper in respect of which the appropriate conditions are fulfilled, and


15
(b) the Authority shall fix a date before which representations may be made to the Authority under subsection (4) of this section and shall cause notice of that date to be given or published as may appear to the Authority to be appropriate for bringing it to the attention of persons who in their opinion are likely to be affected by it.


20
(3) For the purposes of this section the appropriate conditions shall be taken to be fulfilled in respect of a newspaper if it has in the relevant locality a circulation which, in the opinion of the Authority, represents a substantial proportion of the population of that locality, unless the Authority are satisfied that the broadcasting of the programmes to be provided under the contract in question is unlikely to have a materially adverse effect on the financial position of the newspaper.


25
(4) The appropriate conditions shall also be taken for the purposes of this section to be fulfilled in respect of a newspaper if, on representations being made to the Authority by or on behalf of the proprietor of the newspaper before the date fixed under subsection (2)(b) of this section, the Authority are satisfied that (notwithstanding that its circulation falls short of the proportion mentioned in subsection (3) of this section) the broadcasting of the programmes to be provided under the contract in question is likely to have a materially adverse effect on the financial position of the newspaper.


30
(5) Where it appears to the Authority that the appropriate conditions are fulfilled in respect of a newspaper, then, subject to the next following section, the Authority shall not enter into the contract unless they are satisfied that—


35
(a) arrangements have been made for enabling the proprietor of the newspaper to acquire, on terms approved by the Authority, a shareholding consisting of such number of shares of such description as may be so approved, and



(b) either the acquisition of the shareholding has been completed, or it will be completed within a reasonable time, or the proprietor of the newspaper has declined to acquire it on the terms approved by the Authority.


40
(6) The number and description of shares to be approved for the purposes of any such arrangements—



(a) in the case of a newspaper which is the only local newspaper circulating in the relevant locality, or the only local newspaper having a substantial circulation in that locality, shall not be such as to enable the proprietor of the newspaper to obtain control over the programme contractor, but


45
(b) in any other case, or (in a case falling within the preceding paragraph) to such extent as is consistent with that paragraph, shall be such as the Authority consider appropriate, having regard to the adverse effect which the broadcasting of the programmes to be provided under the contract in question is likely to have on the financial position of the newspaper.


50
(7) Any terms approved by the Authority under subsection (5)(a) of this section shall be such as, in the opinion of the Authority, will enable the shareholding to be acquired at a price not exceeding its current market value or (if it has no current market value) a price not exceeding a fair valuation of the shareholding.


55
(8) In this and the next following section 'newspaper' does not include any publication which is not printed for sale or which is published at intervals of more than seven days, and 'shareholding', in relation to a programme contractor which is a body corporate, means a holding of shares in that body corporate.—[Mr. Chataway.]



Brought up, and read the First time.

7.15 p.m.

The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway): I beg to move. That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time the sub-amendment (c) in line 55, leave out "seven" and insert "fifteen".
And new Clause 2: "Provisions supplementary to section (Special provisions as to newspaper shareholdings in relation to local sound broadcasts)".

Mr. Chataway: It will be within the recollection of hon. Members who took part in our extended Committee stage upstairs that we gave considerable thought to the rôle of newspapers in sound radio. Two of my hon. Friends felt that the provisions in the Bill were unsatisfactory in that they gave too privileged a place to newspapers, and their view was apparently shared, though for exactly which reasons was not clear, by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and Clause 7 was deleted from the Bill at the conclusion of the debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".
I proposed new Clauses 1 and 2 as substitutes for the old Clause 7. I will come later to new Clause 3, when I shall move to fulfil an undertaking I gave in Committee to table an Amendment to ensure that no group, company or newspaper should have too large a shareholding in the system as a whole.
New Clause 1 seeks to put back the effective parts of Clause 7. There was a fair measure of agreement in Committee that newspapers had a legitimate anxiety about the effect on them of local radio. There were differences of view about the extent to which newspapers would be likely to be affected, but the majority felt that there would likely be some effect.
The advice I have about the likely impact of local radio stations on the revenue of local newspapers is that though some advertisers will try radio and perhaps stay with it in preference to local newspapers, the extent of the diversion is not, in general, likely to be greater than the local Press could bear. It is not by any means certain that a local newspaper will in the long run be worse off because local radio has come to its area.
The stimulus of local interest and perhaps publication of the radio timetable in the pages of the local newspaper may actually be of material advantage. However, as against that, it seems reasonable to suppose that the introduction of a new medium to be financed by advertising will attract to itself some of the advertising revenue now enjoyed by the papers.
At any rate, one could not positively assert that bringing into the local commercial arena this new medium might not result in some hardship in some cases. It would indeed be entirely contrary to Government policy if local radio stations were able to create for themselves a new kind of monopoly by destroying contemporary and competitive local newspapers
The Government also believe that, provided safeguards can be secured against the risks inherent in an undue concentration of the means of communication—I shall be dealing in more detail with this aspect when I come to new Clause 2, which is supplementary to this one—the local Press can make a valuable contribution to the operation of an independent local radio service. Their relevant experience and expertise and the facilities they possess will be very useful to local radio stations, particularly in their early days.
For these reasons—so that the Press and the new service can have the best chance both to survive and to compete—the Government have decided that the Authority should be vested with duties to ensure for local newspapers with a wide circulation in the area of a local radio station and others that would be adversely affected financially, a right to acquire shareholdings if they wish to do so.
Safeguards were proposed originally against undesirable influence being exercised by newspapers as a result of their shareholdings in local radio. If, for example, a local newspaper has a monopoly in the area, then it is not allowed to have a controlling interest in the local radio station. However, I believe it right that we should give to local newspapers some opportunity when introducing this new medium.
This was what we promised to do in our election manifesto. It has been understood by the local newspapers from the start that we should give to them


a particular place. As I have said, in new Clause 3, when we come to it, I have introduced a further amendment to the Bill which will ensure that newspapers in aggregate are not able to control the system and that there are proper safeguards against anybody having too large a share of the total equity. But if we are to ensure, particularly over the transitional phase, that newspapers are not adversely affected by the new medium and that they can make their full contribution, I believe that arrangements such as we have proposed are of importance.
My hon. Friends the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) and the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot), both of whom have been unhappy with the provision as originally proposed in the Bill, will find in new Clause 3 that I have moved some way towards meeting their anxieties. But I hope that they will recognise that the local newspapers believe that a provision such as this is necessary if they are not to be adversely affected.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brig house and Spenborough treated our undertaking in the election manifesto in a rather cavalier spirit. He said that there was a good deal of padding in election manifestos. I cannot take that view. I believe that we were right to say that newspapers would be treated in a particular way and that we are right to include this provision in the Bill. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North took the view that while newspapers had originally believed that they would need some such provision as this, they no longer thought it necessary and that they had acquired a confidence that would enable them to feel that a provision such as this was not required. I am left in no doubt, however, by the correspondence I have received from hon. Members who have been approached by their local newspapers that that is not so, and that the majority of local newspapers believe that a provision such as this is a sensible one.

Mr. John Gorst: It is true that the Newspaper Society has been writing in all directions but, whilst it has been writing in all directions, my right hon. Friend might like to know that it has always been talking with two

voices, one saying that it is absolutely essential to have this and the other one saying, "We do not really give a damn whether we have it or not".

Mr. Chataway: If it has spoken with two voices, I have not heard one of them. Only the first voice has come to my attention. The correspondnece I have had with hon. Members has also indicated unanimous local newspaper support for the provisions of the Clause.
I turn briefly to some of the details of new Clause 1. It follows very closely the old Clause 7, but subsection (2)(b) is new. Its purpose is to stop the process of fixing the size of shareholdings for newspapers from becoming a means of delaying the development of the new service. It accomplishes this by giving the Authority the duty of fixing a time limit within which a newspaper can make its representations. This point was raised in Committee. It is right to ensure that this process does not cause unnecessary delay.
Subsection (3), which takes the place of paragraph 3(a) of the old Clause, brings within the scope of the Clause a newspaper whose circulation in the opinion of the Authority represents a substantial proportion of the population of the locality to which the station will broadcast. Such a newspaper is by definition one which fulfils the conditions entitling it to be offered a shareholding unless—and this is a new proviso—the Authority is satisfied that it is unlikely to suffer a materially adverse effect on its financial position.
What this amounts to is that there is a presumption in favour of such a newspaper, though one which is capable of being rebutted by whatever evidence the Authority may adduce. So the only newspaper in this category which would not be entitled, as of right, to some shareholding would be one in respect of which the Authority is satisfied that there would be no adverse effect.

Mr. Ivor Richard: I am not sure whether I understand the last three sentences which the right hon. Gentleman read on subsection (3). Is the position that if a newspaper has a circulation which is a substantial proportion of the population of the locality, prima facie it is to have the right to buy in unless the Authority is satisfied that


the broadcasting of the programmes would be unlikely to have a materially adverse effect on the financial position of the newspaper? In other words, the onus in this is exactly the other way round from the way in which it was set out originally. I think that I am right in saying that. Before the Minister leaves that matter, would he give us his thoughts upon what a substantial proportion of the population the locality might be? I have been trying to consider how it may be capable of being construed, and "substantial" is not the same as "majority". How do the Minister and those advising him approach that particular problem?

Mr. Chataway: Obviously, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate, it would be bound to be for the Authority to decide ultimately what it considered to be a substantial proportion in this context. It would be wrong to try to fix any set proportion of the population, because clearly there could be very differing circumstances in various towns. In a large town, such as London, where there is a very large number of newspapers, one would want to look at a newspaper which had a circulation way below 50 per cent. of the total population. In another situation in a smaller town where there were only two newspapers a totally different percentage would be appropriate. So that although it seems imprecise, the House will recognise that this is something that one is bound to leave ultimately to the Authority.
The hon. and learned Gentleman formulated exactly the effect of the new subsection (3). It was necessary to make this relatively small change because of an imprecision in the original drafting. It will mean that there is a less absolute right on the part of newspapers than was envisaged in the original subsection, and that if a newspaper with a substantial circulation is felt by the Authority not to be affected by the coming of the new station, it would not have a right to participate. But it would still be open to the Authority to allow it to participate.

Mr. Richard: This is becoming increasingly important having regard to the range of transmission which it appears

that these stations are now to have. It one is to have one station for the whole of London, for instance, with a very large number of newspapers included in the locality which will be affected by that one station, on the face of it one will have a very large number of relatively small newspapers which, prima facie, under the Bill will have the right to buy in to that programme contractor.
If the idea is to protect the small newspapers, I can at least see some argument for it; but the saving words which the Minister has now tacked on to the end of subsection (3) would seem to say that in that situation one would exclude the small newspapers because it is unlikely that Radio London will take much advertising away from—I do not know—the Fulham Advertiser or the Barnet Chronicle, but, on the other hand it may take away a great deal of advertising from the Evening Standard or the Evening News. I find it difficult to believe the object of the exercise is to deprive the small newspaper of the right to buy in but to permit the large newspaper an automatic right of entry because of the range of transmission of the new station.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Chataway: I hope I can set the hon. and learned Member's mind at rest on this, because that is certainly not the intention and nor is it the effect. In the original Clause 7(3) there were two criteria: whether a newspaper had a substantial circulation and whether it was likely to be adversely affected. On the whole, it would be the larger stations that would be able to prove a substantial circulation and the smaller papers, not being able to prove a substantial circulation, who would tell the Authority that they considered they would be adversely affected. If the Authority believed there were reasonable grounds for considering that they would so be affected they too could have the right to participate.
Although it was not noticed in the Committee, there was in Clause 7, as originally drafted, a loose end. In subsection (5) the Authority was not left with any criteria by which to judge how those newspapers with a substantial circulation should have their right to participate determined. Under Clause 7(5)(b) the Authority was required to have regard to the adverse effect which the broadcast


of programmes might have on the newspaper in question and it was according to that that it was required to determine the size of participation by the newspaper.
No criterion was afforded to the Authority to determine on what basis it should give a shareholding to those who qualify under the first heading of "a substantial circulation", and it is really for nothing more than this drafting reason that this modest change has been made in subsection (3). Now it is spelled out that the Authority will, in determining how much of a share hold shall be afforded to the newspaper, have regard to the financial effect of the radio station upon the newspaper. It is to have that regard whether or not the newspaper qualifies for a shareholding by virtue of being adversely affected financially or by virtue of having a substantial circulation in the area.
I am sorry this is a matter of complication and I am sorry if I am not able to spell it out more clearly. But I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that the effect of this is in no way adverse to the small newspaper. It has no effect on the small newspaper at all. The smallest newspaper in the situation which the hon. and learned Member is describing will want to prove to the Authority not that it has a substantial circulation, because it may not be able to do so, but that it is likely to be adversely affected and it will have all the rights that were considered when we discussed Clause 7 originally.

Mr. Richard: With respect to the Minister. I am not wrong. He is saying that the small newspaper will not have the right to buy in unless it can prove that it is adversely affected. That is what he has just said. A large newspaper will have the right to buy in automatically provided it has a substantial circulation in the area unless, in the Authority's opinion, it is not adversely affected. What is the justification for excluding the small newspaper unless it can show a direct financial disadvantage and automatically including the large newspaper unless, in the opinion of the Authority, it is unlikely to be affected.

Mr. Chataway: The original arrangement was that the large newspaper simply had to show that it would have a substantial circulation—

Mr. Richard: That is still true.

Mr. Chataway: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to continue? The large newspaper would then have a shareholding. The only effect of the change is that the large newspaper has to show that it has a substantial circulation but if—and this is the change—the Authority believes that it will not be adversely affected, it need not then get a shareholding. That is the only change on Clause 7.
The arrangement for those newspapers which do not have substantial circulation but which are likely to be adversely affected is exactly the same in the new Clause as in the old Clause 7. The reason is that the presumption is that if a newspaper does not have a substantial circulation in the area it will not be affected at all. The smallest newspaper in London circulating in a square mile or two will certainly not be affected by a radio station which is broadcasting over the greater London area. In the situation in London it is obvious that a station will be competing for advertising against the Evening Standard and Evening News and newspapers which circulate right across the area. But if it is not competing for advertising in any way, shape or form with a very small newspaper, there would be no reason to offer that small newspaper the opportunity to participate.
In many parts of the country it will be the smallest newspapers which will make use of this provision because, for example, in the situation of Radio Scunthorpe, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred throughout the Committee stage, one could envisage, although I do not know how many newspapers there are in Scunthorpe, that one or two newspapers with relatively small circulations throughout Scunthorpe would wish to participate and would have the right under the Clause.

Mr. John Golding: The Minister is referring to advertising revenue. Would I be wrong in inferring that the Clause refers to the actual sales and circulation of the newspapers involved?

Mr. Chataway: It refers to the circulation.

Mr. Gorst: A very important point needs to be explained. What is to be


the position of the newspaper in London which has not made up its mind whether it wants to go into the first or second station? Will it be able to go into both? What is the position of a newspaper, say in Birmingham, where there is to be only one station to begin with? If it finds itself with a second station in a few years time could it, if it wished, have a shareholding in that station also? Will it be allowed to choose which station it goes into and how many stations? This is not made clear in the new Clause.

Mr. Chataway: It would have the right to participate in only one and this is, of course, a once and for all right, as has been made clear. If the station were to lose its contract because it behaved unsatisfactorily, then the newspaper which had the right to participate in it the first time would not be able to claim any such right on the second occasion. It is a transitional arrangement. It is a provision to deal fairly with local newspapers which will suddenly be faced with a competitor they might reasonably not have expected.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: What the right hon. Gentleman has said so far may sound comforting, but on mature reflection and examination it will be very disturbing to the small newspaper interests. The Conservative Party gave the following undertaking in its election manifesto:
Local institutions, particularly local newspapers, will have the opportunity of a stake in local radio, which we want to see closely associated with the local community.
The Minister now appears to be entering a caveat, because he is saying that news papers are to have a stake with the permission of the Authority. That is the new feature of the Clause. In Manchester there is a host of local news papers. In the city alone the Reporter group of newspapers publishes 14 separate editions, the East Manchester Reporter, the Denton Reporter—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going on a bit too long. His interventions would be more effective and would help us to understand the situation better if he could made them a bit more snappy.

Mr. Morris: The proposal in the Clause will create an almost insoluble problem for the Authority.

Mr. Chataway: The Authority does not take that view. We have had considerable detailed discussions with it about the arrangements and exactly how they should be drafted. It is very pleasant to have the hon. Gentleman's contribution since he was not a member of the Committee. I am glad that his anxieties are entirely about whether the Clause is strong enough. His hon. Friends voted against the provision, apparently in the belief that no special arrangements for local newspapers were needed. The ultimate judgment must be left with the Authority. It would be impossible to spell out in legislation, and highly undesirable, the proportion of the population that had to be covered by the circulation. These are judgments that must be left to the Authority. This is a reasonable provision which will enable the newspaper to participate.
We have talked about a very unusual situation, the situation of London. There is nothing in the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion that ideas have changed about the likely coverage of the stations. I explained at some length in the Committee what the Authority envisaged by way of coverage for the stations that will be introduced. Up to now we have been considering London. I think it fairer and more representative to consider the smaller area where there may be just one or two stations. It would be unreasonable if one newspaper, part of a winning consortium, were enabled to go into local radio and the other local paper in the area, perhaps almost as worthy, but not part of the winning consortium, were left out. It is not a free market situation. It would not be able to compete in kind; it would not be able to start up a local station of its own. The only fair answer is to say that where local newspapers play a major part in the area served they should have this right.

Mr. A. P. Costain: What is my right hon. Friend's provision for a station at, say, Folk stone or Dover, which could cover a French newspaper's area. Does the "Calais Gazette" have the right to take shares in the station? Are we to discriminate against the French?

Mr. Chataway: I hate to disappoint my hon. Friend. We have no plans for providing, even on a minor scale, local


radio for France. The catchment areas of the radio stations proposed will be in this country, and therefore only British newspapers will have the right to participate.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: The right hon. Gentleman has been defining "small area" in a curious way, as one with one local radio station. That may be a very large area, because this hand-out has nothing to do with competition. Therefore, does he agree that there may be difficulties in those large areas with one commercial radio station if there are several newspapers in the area, possibly under the same management, which can show, under either of the criteria he has mentioned, that they are likely to be affected? If in Nottingham the Guardian Journal and Evening Postboth said they affected, would the proprietors, who are the same group of people, be allowed to buy a double share in the station?

Mr. Chataway: It would be for the Authority to determine what would be a reasonable share for that company. There are provisions which limit the participation newspapers may have in the whole. Therefore it would be impossible for any reasonable man looking at the qualifications in the Bill to suppose that newspapers will be able to exercise any damaging control over the new system. The safeguards are far too tight.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: The right hon. Gentleman has been asked about a city where there are many newspapers perhaps under one control. That is precisely the situation in Glasgow, which will be one of the first areas to have a local radio station, where there is one large newspaper group which does not own all the local newspapers but has a major and controlling interest in almost every small newspaper in the West of Scotland. How does he see such a situation being dealt with by the Authority?

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman's concern is obviously that that company should not have too large a share. The Authority will be able to take into account the facts he has described in determining what is a reasonable shareholding.
The procedure is not totally new to the Authority. It has on occasions in the

allocation of television contracts believed it was reasonable for the newspaper in the area to be a participant, and even where the newspaper was not part of the winning contractor it required the contractor to make room for the newspaper. These are judgments that must in detail be left to the Authority. We could not spell out in detail in a Bill percentages that would be appropriate in every situation in every area. The hon. Gentleman need not fear that there is anything in the Bill that would inhibit the Authority from dealing with such situations.
I appreciate that those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee may wonder why there are two new Clauses in place of the original Clause 7. I have made this separation to meet the objections of the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court of the way in which Section 12B of the original Clause 7 was drafted. On reflection, it seemed to me that some of his criticisms of the form in which it was drafted were justified and that there would be greater clarity if we were to spell it out. The text of the new provision is precisely the same, subject to necessary alterations in number references, as Section 12B of the old Clause 7. There were very few Amendments to that part of the old Clause 7, none of which could be claimed to be significant. I do not believe that it was against this part of the old Clause 7 that any hon. Members were voting.
The new Clause has three functions. The first is the basic one which imports in relation to the operation of the previous Clause about shareholdings for newspapers in local radio programme companies the concept, already familiar from Section 12(1) of the Television Act, 1964, that there must not be newspaper interests in a programme contractor which have led or are leading to results against the public interest. That is a formidable safeguard against some of the possible adverse effects which have worried hon. Members.
Secondly, the new Clause establishes that, in a given locality, so long as that locality does not change significantly in size or local geography, a newspaper can benefit from the previous Clause on only one occasion.
Thirdly, the new Clause establishes that, whilst a newspaper will not on more


than one occasion have a right under the enactment to fresh shareholdings, the Clause is not intended to stop the Authority from requiring a programme contractor to offer a shareholding to a newspaper if it seems to the Authority that, by reason of special circumstances, it would be just and equitable to do so. This is a simple matter of construction lest it be thought that the limitations on the rights of newspapers were also to be limitations on the power of the Authority to invite a newspaper to participate if that seemed to be the proper course.

Mr. Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend clarify this? If a franchise area were to be changed at a subsequent date—the power of the transmitter extended perhaps—and a new newspaper had a significant circulation there, would it then be open to the Authority to foist yet another newspaper on to the consortium, or the company as it would then be, in this new situation?

Mr. Chataway: In the perhaps unlikely circumstances of a major change in the area to which a radio station was broadcasting, clearly a fresh newspaper might be affected by it. It might be that if a station were to have its area trebled a number of new newspapers would have then a significant and substantial circulation within the area. In these circumstances, where the Authority might then be re-forming the company in order to cover a much larger area, there would be newspapers which would have the once-for-all right of participation which the newspapers participating in the original company had had. But that is obviously a fairly unlikely situation.
These two new Clauses meet the undertaking given in the Conservative Election Manifesto. We have always taken the view that newspapers should be treated in a particular way in the introduction of local radio. I appreciate the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) that newspapers should simply stand to compete just like anyone else, such as shopkeepers, in the area who may wish to participate. That is not the view of the Government. It is not the view that we took in Opposition. We have always considered that local newspapers make an extremely valuable contribution to the democratic

process, that it is important that they should be safeguarded and that we should ensure that we do not substitute one kind of monopoly for another. I believe, therefore, that these provisions are reasonable.
The Opposition have made it clear that they do not oppose in principle commercial radio.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: Not true?

Mr. Chataway: Not true? I am surprised at that. Time and again when we chided them in Committee that they were in no position to talk about diversity of ownership because they were the champions of monopoly, hon. Members opposite made it clear that they were not defending the B.B.C. monopoly. Indeed, the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court gave an interview the other day to a leading publication called. Cinema TV Today. He was asked whether he was in favour of commercial radio and he said:
I would be in favour of a commercial national alternative to the B.B.C. in sound broadcasting I've no objection to that.
He went on to relate how he was opposed to the idea of the B.B.C. monopoly. The great majority of hon. Members opposite have accepted that competition is a good thing in radio and they want to see commercial radio, although they differ as to the kind they want. Some want it to be more local, some more national, but all want something different from what the Bill proposes. Nevertheless, they accept the need to safeguard the position of local newspapers. They profess to care about them. They have put forward in Committee and on Report no alternative means of easing the transitional period for local newspapers, however. I hope, therefore, that on reflection they will recognise that, if one is to have healthy competition in radio and the variety of local newspapers which most of us believe to be valuable to the country, a provision such as that enshrined in these two new Clauses is required.

Mr. Richard: After the Minister's speech—perhaps I should refer to him as the ex-Minister—it might be appropriate for me to say something about these two new Clauses. First, I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on his translation, if that be the right word. I also


congratulate the hon. Gentleman who is succeeding him in assuming the mantle of responsibility for posts and telecommunications and broadcasting. I assure him that we will treat him with the same unfailing courtesy and attention that we treated his predecessor and that if he produces a piece of legislation as well considered and weighty and as beautifully drafted as the one we have been considering for five and a half months in Committee, we will also give that Measure as earnest, as detailed and as cogent, I trust, consideration as we have given this Bill. We welcome him and wish him well. We are glad to see him here in statu pupillarithis evening. Perhaps at the end of it he will discover, as we in Committee discovered all too frequently, that the longer we consider the Bill, the less any of us understand it.
I re-emphasise the point I made in an intervention. There is no doubt that on the structure the Minister is proposing for commercial network new Clause 1 will effectively debar the small newspapers from participation. It will effectively invite or, indeed, compel the Authority to allow large newspaper participation.

8.0 p.m.

Even the Minister, when faced with this fond farewell—I am sure that his fare well will be very fond—to this delicate piece of legislation, will agree that, if the new Clause excludes the small newspaper and allows in the large newspaper, it is a bad Clause.

Mr. Gorst: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman agree, following what he has said, that the small newspapers will be forced to compete for a place in this system while the large ones will get it as of right, and that this is totally wrong?

Mr. Richard: The hon. Gentleman merely restates the proposition which I am about to prove to everybody's satisfaction. He did so in a different but no less effective way and one which found just as little approval from his own Front Bench.
Initially there are to be five stations, two in London and one each in Manchester, Glasgow and Birmingham. The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) gave us in Committee on 9th December a detailed and powerful analy-

sis in terms of population figures, a demographic analysis of the country, to show where these stations were to go. His conclusion was that, after starting with the big five, we would discover that the four next largest stations, assuming that they were in the largest centres of population, would be in Tyneside, Merseyside, West Yorkshire and perhaps the Solent area. Each of these has a population of about 1 million to 1¼ million.
The second 10 of the 20 stations, the Minister said on Second Reading, were intended to include "one or two"—not all—of the relatively small cities. The Authority would at that stage be generally concentrating on the large cities, with populations of not much less than Sheffield which, with Rotherham, has a population of 615,000. If these second 10 stations are to have populations of up to 500,000 each and there are to be two smaller towns of 200,000 each, we are considering an additional coverage of 4·2 million. So the first 20 stations will cover 45 per cent. of the country and a population of 4·2 million.
Therefore, we are not talking about local commercial radio. Whatever we are now talking about, it is regional commercial radio. If I am right and that is what the Bill is all about, and the coverage of each individual station will be relatively large—certainly over the half million in those 20, and towns the size of Cardiff or Swansea will not be included—it is a travesty of language to justify the compulsory participation of newspapers in a commercial radio contract by reference to a small local newspaper in a small local town, where the local butcher will cut down his advertising expenditure by putting it on the local radio station rather than in the local newspaper. That is not what we are now talking about under this structure.

Mr. Chataway: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House. He talked about 20 stations but, as he knows, because we have discussed the matter endlessly in Committee, the Authority envisages that there will be up to 60 stations and that their strategy will be, I should have thought sensibly, to go in the main for the larger areas first and then to go on to


smaller ones. If they succeed in getting to 60 stations, they will be catering for populations of 100,000. I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman took the view that the B.B.C. local radio stations were a travesty of language because they included London, Birmingham and Solent.

Mr. Richard: One thing I did not say was that the Evening Standardshould have the automatic right of entry into B.B.C. Radio London. The Minister talks of the plan. What is the time-scale? In the immediate future there will be not 60 commercial stations but five, with possibly another four and then possibly another 10. We are therefore talking about a time-scale of six to eight years. By the time we get out of the first 20 and into the next 20, we may be in the next decade.
I do not see why one should try to produce a structure now which, in the initial years, will be applicable to the large cities so far as newspaper participation is concerned and justify it by what might happen in 10 or 12 years, if and when the I.B.A. gets down to towns the size of 100,000 or 120,000. One asks what will happen in the four conurbations which we are discussing.
According to the Bill, before a contract is awarded the I.B.A. must consider the position of the newspapers in the area to see whether there is in that area a newspaper with a substantial circulation. In London, for instance, the Evening News and the Evening Standardwould be able to prove large circulations, as indeed would the national Press. In Birmingham a semi-national like the Birmingham Postcould be said to have a substantial circulation. In Glasgow, papers like the Glasgow Herald, the ordinary daily tabloids and even papers like The Scotsman, could establish a substantial circulation.
If it is established in London, as it clearly can be, that the Evening Standard and the Evening News have a substantial circulation, according to this Clause they will have an automatic right of entry into a commercial radio contract, unless the Authority is satisfied that the broadcasting of the programmes is likely to have a materially adverse effect on the financial position of the newspapers.
It is clearly arguable that some of the advertisement revenue on Radio London will be diverted from the Standard and the News. Thus, they will have the right to buy in. But the local newspapers in the London area, by which I mean the small local borough newspaper like the Acton and Shepherd's Bush Gazette, the West London Observer and the Fulham Chronicle—I am sure that the House will forgive me for being "commercial" about newspapers in my area—will need some protection. Yet those newspapers do not have to show merely that they circulate in the area and have a right therefore to come in unless it can be shown that they are not adversely affected. On the contrary the Government, for a reason best known to themselves, put the onus in exactly the opposite direction. It is easier for the bigger newspaper to buy into a programme contract company with this structure than it is for a small one to do so.
New Clause 1(4) states:
The appropriate conditions shall also be taken…to be fulfilled…if…the Authority are satisfied that (notwithstanding that its circulation falls short of the proportion mentioned in subsection (3) of this section) the broadcasting of the programmes…is likely to have a materially adverse effect on the financial position of the newspaper.
Unless the little newspaper in London, the Shepherd's Bush Gazette, the West London Observer, or the Fulham Chronicle, can show to the Authority's satisfaction that it will be adversely affected by Radio London, it will not have a right of entry into that programme company. That is right, is it not?

Mr. Chataway: It certainly is right, and I imagine that the hon. and learned Gentleman is anxious that the Evening News and the Evening Standard should be continued, but does he think it reasonable that the Shepherd's Bush Gazette, if it is in no way affected by Radio London, should have a right to participate?

Mr. Richard: No. What I say is that there is no sense in putting responsibility in exactly the opposite direction. There is no justification for saying that all the Evening Standard has to do is to show that it has a substantial circulation and it will get the right of entry, whereas a smaller newspaper does not get a right


of entry unless it can show that it is adversely affected. Even on the right hon. Gentleman's approach I do not see why the onus should be put in entirely the opposite place, dependent on the size of the newspaper.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the type of advertising that is carried in small local newspapers is not in direct competition with the type of advertising which will be carried on commercial radio in the same way as advertising which is carried in large provincial newspapers is?

Mr. Richard: The hon. Lady proves my case. What she is saying is that local newspapers do not need protection—

Mrs. Oppenheim: indicated dissent.

Mr. Richard: With respect, that is exactly what the hon. Lady said, and I suspect by the look on her face that she knows she said it. She said that the little newspaper is unlikely to be affected by a commercial radio station like Radio London because the sort of advertising it carries is different from the sort of advertising carried by Radio London. Therefore I say to the hon. Lady, why protect? Why have it in at all? The hon. Lady need not turn her eyes up to the ceiling looking for inspiration from the roof because the logic of what she said is precisely that. If those newspapers will not be adversely affected, why are we going through all this nonsense of new Clauses 1, 2 and 3?
If the hon. Lady believes what she has said about the sort of advertising that is carried in one newspaper as opposed to another, she is conceding the second part of my case, which is that this Clause is not designed to protect the small local newspaper and neither will it do so. What it will do is to protect the large regional newspaper, and I cannot for the life of me see why the House of Commons should be a party to permitting the Evening Standard, the Evening Newsand other newspapers of that ilk to have a compulsory right of purchase into a commercial radio station. I do not see why we should lend ourselves to it.
If we do lend ourselves to it, let us be open and frank about what we are doing. Let us not kid ourselves, as the Lord

Eccles attempted to do in another place, that the Clause is designed for the protection of the small one-man newspaper. One has this delicious picture of an antique press with father and son, one putting the paper in at one end and one writing the newspaper. Out it goes on to the streets containing an advertisement by the local butcher saying "My sausages are 2p cheaper today than they were yesterday". That is not what we are talking about. In discussing the Clause we are talking about the great national newspaper chains. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) had a great phrase about the Bill. He said it was the gravy bowl. The more one examines new Clause 1, the more it looks like a bowl and the more it smells of gravy. To those who have, it shall be given by the Conservative Party.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: My hon. and learned Friend has made a valid point which is perhaps even more valid than he thought. That extraordinary publication the Evening Standard is in financial deficit and will be allowed to suck up revenues from a profitable Radio London, not to save itself from damage by Radio London but to give itself new life which it has not earned and does not deserve.

Mr. Richard: Mr. Richard It is obviously not a gravy bowl but a blood bowl. The Bill provides a transfusion. The position is no different now from what it was when we discussed the Bill in Committee. If anything it is slightly worse.

Mr. Wilfred Proud food: The population of London is 12 million and, therefore, the two stations would have a huge listener ship of about 4 or 5 million each, which equals the circulation of the national dailies. I can see a situation arising in which national advertisers would be very pleased to get at 4 million people and I can see the national newspapers saying that some of their advertising revenue has been stolen by the radio stations. The argument could apply equally to the national dailies.

Mr. Richard: I follow the point which the hon. Gentleman puts with his customary clarity and accuracy.

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) also made this point, with clarity I agree, but not with accuracy. The Clause refers only to those newspapers with a circulation wholly or mainly in that locality.

Mr. Richard: The right hon. Gentleman is right, subsection (2) refers to—
…any newspaper which circulates wholly or mainly in that locality…
If therefore one had, as one has in London, regional newspapers which circulate mainly in the locality, and in other parts of the country there are regional papers circulating mainly in the locality, they would clearly be covered by the Clause—not the Daily Express, just the Evening Standard.
As I was saying, the Clause is just as objectionable now as it was previously. There is still the same danger of over concentration of power over different parts of the communications media in too few hands. There is still the same obfuscation about the wording of the Clause and the same danger that it will help the wrong people.
If the Clause was designed purely to aid and protect the small local newspaper in a clearly defined and obvious locality, and if that newspaper was obviously going to be seriously affected by a commercial radio station in its area, that would be one position; but I do not see why the House of Commons should lend itself to a structure in which the large newspaper groups will be permitted a share in the profits of an entirely separate commercial enterprise merely because they happen to have a newspaper in that area.
Presumably the new Clause will apply to the London news station as it will to any other station. Therefore, it would give the Evening Standardthe right to buy into Radio London, but would also give the Evening Standard and the Evening Newsthe right—[Interruption.] The Minister seems to disagree, but that is what the Clause says. He may say that that is not how it will operate, but we cannot rely on his good faith in matters about which we know nothing and which we have not discussed. On the face of the Clause, a newspaper would have the right to buy into a news station which was indirect competition with it.

That surely is utterly wrong. In due course I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide against these new Clauses.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I am happy to intervene briefly in this discussion to express support for the new Clause since I firmly believe it constitutes a very important and necessary safeguard by seeking to provide some sort of financial protection for provincial newspapers against the possibility of loss of circulation or loss of advertising as a result of the introduction of a local commercial radio station. I shall confine my remarks to the principle behind the Clause which, as I see it, accepts that the provincial paper has a very important rôle to play in our society and that some safeguards are necessary.
I cannot emphasise too strongly how vital I believe it to be that there should be some protection given to the financial viability of local newspapers. It must be remembered that the financial soundness of newspapers, whether provincial or national, is continually under pressure.
I should like to deal with the question of the importance of the good local newspaper and the service which it provides in the area which it covers. Not only does a local newspaper represent the character and atmosphere of the area, and often the views of the people in the area, but it also reflects, enhances and preserves the differences in character and temperament between different regions. The local newspaper becomes part of the local scene in a way in which no other medium can.
I am fortunate in being able to give the House an example of what I mean. I have in my hand the 250th anniversary edition of the Gloucester Journalwhich on its front page carries a message of congratulation from Her Majesty the Queen. This was one of the first weekly newspapers in this country and for the past 250 years it has been faithfully recording events and commenting on the history of Gloucester, and has rendered very valuable service to posterity.

Mr. Kaufman: I would not differ from a single word the hon. Lady said both about her own local newspaper—and I admire her for getting a word in about it—and about the value of the local Press in general. But does she not see where


this is leading her? It is as though in a Bill seeking to lay down the principle that wives should be beaten she is saying that there shall be a Clause to bring in policemen to protect wives from being beaten. Ought she not to be saying that wives shall not be beaten and that the best way to protect newspapers is not by having a Clause in a commercial radio Bill to stop unfair competition with newspapers, but not to have commercial radio at all since it undermines her local newspaper, which is such an admirable journal?

Mrs. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman is seeking to mislead me, first by making me believe that he agrees with what I am saying—and I am sure he does not—and, secondly, in his remarks about beating wives. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is married, but I am sure that he would never be connected with the beating of wives. The purpose of the Clause is to increase competition with local radio and not to restrict it in respect of local newspapers.

Mr. Gorst: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's point about the excellent Gloucester Journal, but I know of two newspapers in Cornwall one of which is extremely good and the other extremely bad.

Mr. Golding: Which one is it?

Mr. Gorst: The Cornish Times. Does my hon. Friend believe that regardless of the merits of the newspaper concerned it ought to have an automatic right—because that is what is granted by this Clause?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. I must remind the House that we are considering this Bill on Report and not in Committee. There should not be too many interventions.

Mrs. Oppenheim: I shall try to reply briefly to my hon. Friend's point and then will quickly conclude. There are of course good and bad provincial newspapers. Sometimes it depends on which side of the political fence one sits as to whether one approves of the views of a particular newspaper. Surely if it is a bad newspaper it will in any case have a poor circulation and will not be concerned in the new Clause. It is important to bear in mind the daily provincial

newspaper, because local people often find such newspapers to have the most personal significance for them and they have a greater effect locally than have national newspapers. They also often display a far greater sense of responsibility than either the sound or visual broadcasting media.
I warmly welcome the Clause, and if the Opposition try to defeat it tonight, they will be rendering a great disservice to their own local newspapers.

Mr. Golding: I shall seek to be brief because we have many Amendments before us this evening. I feel I should apologise for not having gone into enough detail in Committee to clear up these matters.
It is pleasing to welcome to our discussions this evening the hon. Member for Bourn mouth, West (Sir J. Eden). His presence is particularly apposite because we are discussing in the new Clause a new form of the "lame duck" principle. The Government have now decided to abandon the principle of rushing in after the ducks are lamed. They have now decided that in the terrible situation of competition they will give hand outs before the competition has damaged one of the competitors. I think it only right that the new Minister of Posts and Telecommunications should join us in the House at this particular point tonight.

8.30 p.m.

I make no bones about it, nor did I on Second Reading: I oppose the newspapers having any part to play in commercial radio. I made that statement on Second Reading, and everything I have heard since has confirmed my view. I shall not be voting tonight because I do not think the Clause is strong enough; I shall not be voting because there are defects in the wording of the Clause; I shall be voting tonight against the participation of local newspapers in local radio.

The point has been made several times by the Minister that this participation under the wording of this new Clause will not give control to the programme contractor, but there is a very narrow line between obtaining control and having undue influence and there is nothing in the legislation that would prevent that


undue influence, as far as I can see. It can be argued that the participation of newspapers in television has been harmful, and I should like to give one example of this—not of harmful influence perhaps but of the relationship between the participation of a newspaper in a television company and the policies of that particular television company.

As I understand it, the Birmingham Post has interests in television in the West Midlands, in A.T.V. Other newspapers have holdings in other television companies. It has been no surprise, therefore, with the derestriction of hours to see those television companies that have proprietors of newspapers on their boards coming out against breakfast-time television and against extended news coverage at the times when the newspapers are being sold on the streets or pushed through letter-boxes. It is quite apparent that there has been an undue influence on those boards in respect of the use of the unrestricted hours of broadcasting.

I welcome the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West because he must have heard the arguments about competition before. He must have listened to one of his hon. Friends expounding the idea that in fact this participation was needed to make the newspapers financially viable.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the point he is making, which is that newspaper interest in television is harmful, because that is what he said, would he not agree that in fact the newspaper interest in television companies has had no effect upon the editorial independence of those television companies, and that is surely the crucial point?

Mr. Whitehead: Yes it has: London Weekend.

Mr. Golding: My hon. Friend behind me, who is very knowledgeable in these affairs and to whom I have listened with great respect during the Committee sittings, reminds me of London Weekend Television. I do not want to say too much about television because at the present time we are examining very carefully in the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries the working of the I.T.A. and the relationship of the I.T.A. with the programme contractors.
I should have thought that the example I gave was important enough. If by participation a television company is led to pursue a policy quite different from that which it would have pursued had there been no participation, that is sufficient reason for us to indict it. They offer us a different product. Instead of offering us news at breakfast-time they decide that they will not start broadcasting until late in the day when the newspapers are stale. But if we go to America we learn that the American companies earn their revenue before the evening and run their evening programmes at a loss. When we inquire when they make the most profit they say at breakfast-time. When one asks oneself why it is that the programme contractors in this country will not have breakfast-time television, perhaps it is a coincidence that the companies which are opposed are those which have newspaper proprietors represented on their boards.
However, I was discussing competition. It is not many months since the new Minister for Posts and Telecommunications was arguing that the National Coal Board should be allowed to own shares in North Sea Gas. His argument was that North Sea gas was threatening, was competitive, was proving to be complementary and was undermining the coal industry. Perhaps hon. Members would care to read the speeches made from the Treasury Bench on that occasion. There was quite a different attitude towards competition. In that respect, competition between North Sea Gas and coal was good. It was said that if coal was to go under and North Sea gas and oil were to dominate, that was the order of the universe, that was the law of competition, that was what capitalism was about. However, it seems that capitalism is not about newspapers competing with local commercial radio.

Mr. Kaufman: Surely my hon. Friend realises that the newly-appointed Minister comes from the Department of Trade and Industry with an entirely new philosophy which the Secretary of State has imbued into that Department, namely, that the law of the jungle and the law of the market no longer prevail but that now the Department should make large financial grants to any enterprise which shows the slightest chance of


failure. No doubt that is the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman approaches the new Clause. However, he comes from a Department which, when it found one specific company failing, did not merely provide grants but nationalised it. Are we to have a new philosophy that not only grants but nationalisation should come into the sphere of the Press?

Mr. Golding: Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us on that subject. I agree that we have a natural sequence of events in Conservative Party thinking at present. Taking the Rolls-Royce example, it would not have surprised me to have found a new Clause in this Bill saying that commercial radio was to be publicly-owned. However, perhaps that will come next year.
I oppose the idea that newspapers should be able to buy themselves into local radio, just as I have opposed in Committee the growth of monopoly capitalism in the entertainment world. I also oppose the growing monopoly of information, especially when that monopoly is privately owned and capitalist owned. I oppose that very strongly. I have supported B.B.C. local radio because it has provided an alternative means of communicating with the electorate.
A good example occurs in my own area of North Stafford shire where Radio Stoke-on-Trent has provided an alternative channel of communication. I have opposed the idea of newspapers being able as of right to buy themselves into local radio, thereby perhaps giving themselves an undue influence, because the very expertise about which the Minister spoke would bring about a stereotyped situation.
In North Stafford shire I want an alternative means of communication to the Evening Sentinel. I want the Evening Sentinel to be subjected to a check and a balance. I know that if the Evening Sentinel were to have a minority interest in a radio station, very quickly the radio station and the evening paper would have the same editorial policy behind them. We on this side of the House know that if papers are privately owned there is a very good chance that their editorial policy will be directed against the Labour Party. Whether it is or not is not a matter of principle. What is at stake is the monopoly of the presentation of news.

Mr. Whitehead: What is even more serious is that these two media, which should be competing, will not thereafter criticise each other, as was the case with London Weekend Television where various periodicals, which were shareholders in it, failed to criticise its manifest weaknesses.

Mr. Golding: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in what he says about London Weekend Television.

Mr. Proudfoot: Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that there is nothing to stop him individually or his local Labour Party investing in the local radio station. I read in the Australian Broadcasting Report that the Australian Labour Party owned one radio station. I believe in multiplicity of ownership. I believe that the Labour Party or the Conservative Party ought to be able to be participants in these stations.

Mr. Golding: I will not go down that avenue. Recently when I was speaking to the President of the Australian Labour Party, he told me that this carried with it several evil consequences, because one becomes financially dependent upon it and makes compromises one would not otherwise make.
Before we go on our international travels, I should remind the absent Minister—I do not blame him for being absent—that circulation is important when considering the damage that can be done by local radio to the local newspaper. I listened with interest to the contribution by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim). There is a way in which local radio can be detrimental to the type of advertising to which she referred in a small newspaper. Local radio can make announcements gratis which are of interest to people listening. It can provide for the small advertiser—the club, the church, or the bring-and-buy sale. Radio Stoke has what is called a swap-shop. The local radio station can provide an alternative means of information other than advertising. What is copy to the local radio station is advertising to the local paper. Broadcasts could be as harmful to small local newspapers as advertising sheets have been. It is naïve to suggest that the small local paper would not be hit by local commercial radio.
In my area we have the situation outlined by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard). We have a group newspaper, the Evening Sentinel, which has a substantial circulation in the six towns of the Potteries, Stafford, my own constituency of New-castle-under-Lyme, and Crewe. It is a very profitable newspaper. It would be more profitable still if it were able to get into a commercial radio station. We have a much smaller newspaper, the Newcastle Times, which is a weekly newspaper. The Kids grove Times, placed against this giant, fights for circulation.

8.45 p.m.

This Bill is unfair. It puts the onus of proof on the Authority to say that the Sentinel will not have shares. It puts the onus of proof on the small Newcastle Timesto demonstrate that it ought to have shares. That is wrong. The onus of proof is in the wrong place. It is for the rich to prove that they are harmed, rather than the other way round.

Paving the way for the Amendment in my name, this Clause defines the newspaper as a periodical which appears at a frequency of no more than seven days.

I—together with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris), and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Gerald Kaufman)—have tabled an Amendment which will extend this periodicity to 15 days. We do so partly because we believe that Private Eye, to take but one example, has been very badly treated by this House. Our Amendment would enable Private Eye to bid for the Radio Neasden Station. It would be a test of the I.B.A. to see if it could control such a Private Eye-run Radio Neasden.

The point made is a serious one. Why should the Minister say that a paper is only a newspaper if its periodicity is seven days or less? What about the situation where the struggle for circulation has been so hard that one can only produce the periodical every fortnight rather than every week? Why is it? What is the logic which has led the Government to say that the weekly periodical can buy itself in but that the fortnightly periodical cannot.

That is why we have tabled an Amendment for discussion tonight: to find out what is the reasoning behind the Government's thinking. I do not think we are going to get a rational explanation, because there is not one.

What this debate has illustrated to me—what the tabling of this new Clause 1 and new Clause 2 has brought home to me—is the fact that the Newspaper Society is obviously the most powerful and important pressure group operating on the Government at the present time. One can well understand why that should be.

Mr. Gorst: This new Clause confers an automatic pre-emptive right upon newspapers, regardless of merit, to have a shareholding. This must, when it is regardless of any merit, be wrong in principle.
If it was not considered necessary, when commercial television started, for newspapers which might equally then have argued, and no doubt did, that they needed protection for their revenues, otherwise they might go out of business, as some of them did, and if it was not argued then—so far as I remember, it was never even contemplated by the Conservative Government of the time—I do not see why it should be regarded as necessary now, particularly as there is not a significant newspaper I can think of that is not already in television if it wants to be. If it was possible for any newspaper that wanted to get into television to do so, why on earth will it not be possible for any local newspaper with merit to get into a local station if it has something to offer?
The justification which the Government have offered to us comes under three headings. The first is that we as a party and as a Government are committed by what we said in our manifesto, and the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) read the appropriate words. But the significant words are
the opportunity of a stake".
I do not know what hon. Members on either side of the House understand by the word "opportunity". I do not know whether they regard it as a chance, as a right or as an opening, or simply as the likelihood that they will not be excluded if they have something to offer. But I


cannot, in the wildest stretch of language and the meaning of language, see how it can be asserted that the word "opportunity" means a pre-emptive right, because that is what the new Clause is all about.

Mr. Fowler: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that all that was meant in the manifesto was that newspapers would have the same opportunity as anyone else to compete for a part in the consortia which competed for commercial radio. If that is the case, it is difficult to see why it was there in the first place.

Mr. Gorst: I do not think my hon. Friend does himself justice. He is a shrewd politician, and he understands only too well the power of the Press and the great need to succour the fears of the Press, particularly at election time. Let us be honest about it. The fact that the Press was singled out for mention must have something to do with that rather than what my hon. Friend is suggesting.
The second argument in favour of the new Clause—that of political expediency, that one cannot take on the Press and win, one cannot issue D notices, one cannot trifle with the Press over Vassal tribunals—isnot relevant. It is an argument that I have heard. The argument goes that because the Government take on the Press at their own peril and always lose it is wrong to try to take on the Press and put it into some sort of relationship with the media as a whole, otherwise things will go wrong for the popularity of the Government.
What that argument fails to understand is that when Governments are dealing with the structure of communications, that is one thing, but when they are trying to trammel up the sources of information for working journalists, that is another thing and they rightly get clobbered. But there is no foundation for the suggestion that political expediency dictates the necessity for the inclusion of the Press with special rights. That is wholly alien—or ought to be—to the whole concept of our freedom of speech and freedom of communications in a democracy.
The third argument that is sometimes put forward—and my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, who is not here now, has made this point on more than one

occasion—is that if by Government action something is done which subjects the Press to competition that it has not foreseen, the Press is entitled to have a shareholding in it. I remind the House that on a previous occasion my right hon. Friend said:
…they have up to now been protected from competition from radio. When, by Government action, one changes this situation, it seems right to give these highly-valued newspapers a degree of priority in the new radio set-up."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th May. 1971; Vol. 818, c. 401–2.]
He made similar references in the Second Reading debate later in November.
I want now to concentrate on what are the main arguments against the re-introduction of this Clause. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) that it is not consistent with any philosophy of competition that I have ever understood or supported on this side of the House. Secondly, I do not believe that we have made any such promise in our Election Manifesto as is involved in the Clause. I do not believe it is even expedient or necessary because I believe that while the newspaper industry will naturally wish to protect its financial interests it is perfectly capable of understanding the nature of and necessity for competition.
It is more important still to stress that this sets a bad precedent. For example, it is one which could well have been called upon by the Caledonian company in asking for shares in B.O.A.C. if B.O.A.C. were offered route rights which it felt were in competition with it. That would be an act of Government fiat and consequently Caledonian would in similar fashion have been entitled to argue that it should have some sort of compensation through the State organisation.
What also concerns me is that we are now setting a precedent which would allow I.T.V.1 contractors at some stage in the future, if I.T.V.2 comes along, to turn to the Government of the day and say "You are by Government decision setting up competition which will affect our revenues. We are a medium of communication. You did this in the Sound Broadcasting Bill; you should do it for us and give us a shareholding in our competitor I.T.V.2". This is a thoroughly bad precedent to be setting.
Why does the Press want these shares? We have an assurance that it will be


neither in aggregate nor in any other way a shareholding that would be used to dominate or attempt to run the medium for the benefit of the Press. When the Newspaper Society is asked to say how many shares it thinks it will get to compensate it for the inflated losses it claims it will sustain, the answer is that it really does not believe that that will compensate it. The Newspaper Society tries to have the best of both worlds. On the one hand it argues that and on the other hand I have heard it argue that up to 60 per cent. of the advertisers in the Birmingham area are likely to want to use commercial radio and that this will be a monstrous loss to the Birmingham Post.
We have only to contemplate the amount of advertising likely to be permitted to realise that 60 per cent. of the advertisers could not possibly find the necessary amount of advertising time because it would not be permitted. These arguments do not stand up unless one looks a little more deeply at this as hon. Members opposite have done and asks what are the motives of the Press. Are they to protect revenue or to minimise the amount of competition? Far from wishing to help the new medium, there are many significant newspapers that wish to have a shareholding simply to emasculate it.
9.0 p.m.
The Press must realise that the rôle it has to play in a society in which there is both local radio and television will be different, as it is in other countries in which the three media exist. The rôle of the Press will change from being a medium which sets out to obtain scoops to giving news in depth. But so long as the Government permit it to get an influential strange hold on the new medium, the new medium will not be allowed to find its own feet because it will not be in the commercial interests of the Press to permit it to do so.
I believe that we are setting a bad precedent by favouring any interest, particularly a powerful one. Let us not forget that we have dealt similarly with the Press in the Budget from the point of view of V.A.T. The Press has had it all its own way. The danger of accepting the new Clause is that we may distort a new medium of communication before it has even got off the ground.
I regret that, for these reasons, I must tell my right hon. Friend that just as I was unable to support a similar Clause in Committee, I shall be unable to support this one. Indeed, I shall feel obliged to vote against it if the matter is taken to a Division. I hope that if the new Clause is added to the Bill, the other place will, in its wisdom, reject it later in the month.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Like the hon. Lady the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim), I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee. I therefore was not present during those deliberations to listen to the erudite, lucid and brief contributions of my hon. Friends as they conducted a detailed consideration of the Bill.
However, irrespective of the principle of whether the nation should have commercial local broadcasting and irrespective of the deep argument about whether newspapers should have a right of access to the ownership of the shares of local broadcasting stations, we must consider the new Clauses from a practical point of view. When one does that, one arrives at the conclusion that these provisions are impracticable.
I suggested in an intervention that the great point at issue in new Clause 1 was that the House of Commons and certainly the Minister were abrogating their responsibility for determining the criteria on which the Authority will judge the pleas it receives from small newspapers that they may be materially adversely affected as far as their advertising revenues is concerned by the establishment and operation of these new local commercial broadcasting stations. The Government are presenting the Authority with an almost insoluble problem.
When replying to my intervention the Minister was positively comforting and said, in effect, "We have had long negotiations with the Authority and are satisfied that it will be able to deal with this situation." Let the Minister be a little more forthcoming. Let him come to the Dispatch Box and let us have access to what was discussed by the Authority. What led him to believe that the Authority can deal with this situation?
In my intervention I endeavoured to instance the problem concerning the City


of Manchester. Manchester is at the centre of the South-East Lancashire conurbation. Within 10 miles of Manchester there are 2 million people and a host of local newspapers. One might very well say that the Manchester Evening News could rightly claim that its circulation covers a substantial proportion of the population in the area served by the envisaged local commercial broadcasting station for Manchester. But within 10 miles of the city lies Stockport, which has two weekly newspapers which are almost in a monopoly position in that county borough, and the Oldham Chronicle, which is in virtually a monopoly position in the County Borough of Oldham.
One can go all the way around the immediate environs of Manchester and highlight thriving local community newspapers which may very well be materially adversely affected by the establishment of a local commercial radio station. Will the Authority allow access to all these local newspapers in an area, such as I have suggested, of 2 million people? Are all these local newspapers which might be materially affected to be allowed direct access to the shareholding of local commercial broadcasting stations?
Regarding local newspapers, in the north of Manchester the Reporter group of newspapers prints 14 separate editions. On the south side of Manchester the County Express group of newspapers is almost in a monopoly position for weekly newspapers. Presumably all these will be materially affected in their advertising revenue.
I reiterate that we are presenting the Authority with this problem but giving it no guidance and establishing no criteria, saying that it is for the Authority to take account of and establish its standards for determining direct access of local newspapers to ownership.

Mr. Chataway: I may be able to reassure the hon. Gentleman a little. He has said that there are no criteria, but the alternative criticism has been made that the Clause is really too detailed and too complex and that we are giving the Authority too much instruction. If the Manchester station were to cover the areas described by the hon. Gentleman, clearly the Authority would have to decide whether the newspapers had a substantial circula-

tion in relation to the total population or whether they were likely to be adversely affected and, if they were, the Authority could give them the opportunity of acquiring a stake. Many of them will not want to take the opportunity. Many will be drawing an entirely different kind of advertising if they are small newspapers covering only a small part of the area. It is for that reason, and as a result of the discussions we have had with the Authority, that the Authority tells me that this is quite workable and that it will be able to do it.

Mr. Morris: In reply to that intervention, I can only say that it is a very strange theory to proceed on the assumption that local newspapers will not be seeking to share in what most people believe might very well be a very profitable enterprise of local commercial broadcasting stations. If it turns out to be profitable, they will seek to share in the profitability and in the share capital of the stations.
An interesting feature is that the Authority will be making its decision as to right of access by local newspapers which are materially and adversely affected before the local commercial station is established. The determination as to right of access will be a preliminary exercise.
The Minister has indicated that five major centres of population will constitute the preliminary run-up for the establishment of local commercial broadcasting. Are these standards and criteria established for these stations to determine the pattern for future local broadcasting by commercial stations? The more I examine these new Clauses the more I am convinced that their whole basis is impracticable. On those grounds alone I would need a very great deal of persuasion to endorse the views and arguments advanced by the Minister and his colleagues.

Mr. Fowler: Like the majority on this side of the House I rise in support of the new Clause. Perhaps I should declare an interest because I was a working journalist before coming into the House although I was not a newspaper owner. The first reason I would express my support is because of the pledge that the


Government made. It has always been understood that local newspapers would have an opportunity to take part in local radio. It was never understood that this meant that they would simply have an opportunity to compete for a licence on a par with other commercial organisations. There is no doubt that this is how it was understood by the newspapers and, I believe, by most other organisations. If it meant in effect that newspapers were to be given an advantage, it certainly did not mean they were simply to be given the same rights, as for example, the manufacturers of baked beans.
Whatever else the Clause does it destroys the monopoly of the B.B.C. in sound radio.

Mr. O'Malley: That has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Member, before he jumps to the conclusion that this has nothing to do with the Clause, will try to follow my argument for a brief period he will see I wish to make one particular point. If we were dealing with a situation of perfect competition there would be no reason for giving newspapers a particular advantage. If everyone and anyone was able to open a local radio station there would be no reason to give newspapers or anyone else a particular advantage. But we do not have that state of perfect competition. We have the state in which the monopoly of the B.B.C. is broken; and, although this is not perfect competition, it is certainly much more preferable to the monopoly situation which exists at the moment.
Therefore, we have to devise a way of making up the consortia which control these stations. It is not possible to leave it to the free market because no free market exists. It is of crucial importance that we accept this. It is self-evident that it is crucially important that the aims of each consortium should be to provide a quality commercial radio service.
9.15 p.m.
One of the vital tests of a radio station would be whether it could produce local news, local current affairs and local features programmes. An acid test of the new system must be its ability to serve an area with locally-originated and produced news. The alternative to that concept is

a commercial radio station based entirely on pop music or sweet music with periodic news bulletins taken straight from the tapes, a system I could not find much time for.
Therefore, apart from the commercial arguments, I can see some advantage in having local newspapers involved in the companies. They have journalistic experience built up over a number of years. They have the background of gathering news. Perhaps above all they have the interest in having news features and current events in their programmes. There is all the difference in the world between a company which provides news simply because it is forced to do so and a company that is genuinely interested and is historically based in the business of providing news, and has been doing it successfully for a long time.
Therefore, at this stage I very much support the Clauses but I have two qualifications. First, the system proposed prevents new journalistically-based groups emerging in each area. By definition it puts the journalistic content of any consortium in the hands of the local newspaper. To that extent it has a limiting effect upon new journalistic groups in each locality playing a part in the local community. Secondly, there is something in the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) though I do not agree with most of what he said, that there will undoubtedly be some local newspapers, although I think probably very few, which see local radio as a challenge to their position and whose major concern might be to try to blunt that challenge as a member of the consortium.

Mr. Chataway: There would not be much danger of that. First, a number of consortia apply. One is chosen, and it is only thereafter that the newspaper has the opportunity to acquire a fairly small shareholding. Therefore, it will not be in a position to stifle a competitor.

Mr. Fowler: I take the point.
Basically, I support the provision as a transitional move to get the system off the ground for the immediate three-year period. It is sensible, first, because it provides the system with the experience it otherwise would not have and, secondly, because of the pledges already made.
I hope that the system and the way it operates, particularly the journalistic side, will be kept under very close review. I know that this will happen.
Basically, what I should like to see in each consortium which produces radio programmes is not necessarily the local newspaper but a journalistic content—that is to say, a number of people who have proved that they have the experience and ability to provide news, with that proof not necessarily being provided by the fact that they happen to be the local newspaper. That would be the ideal aim for the system to work towards. It should be possible for new groups with some journalistic content to grow up. In an ideal world such stations should, I believe, compete not only with the B.B.C. but with the local newspapers as well in as much as they compete in the news gathering process in their locality. I do not think that this would harm the local newspapers but would be of some benefit to them.
The Government say, rightly, that it is important to safeguard the interests of newspapers. But it should follow, on the same reasoning, that it is also important to safeguard the interests of local journalists, and I do not think that the best solution to that problem is a system where one group controls the newspaper plus a significant share of the local radio station. At the very least we must recognise that there may be difficulties when one has a group which has a controlling interest in a newspaper and a significant share in the local radio.
I do not think by definition, as some hon. Members opposite think under the conspiracy theory, that this is necessarily and naturally going to create difficulties, but I think that it could create some. I urge my right hon. Friend to see how the system goes but with the prospect of changing its basis if difficulties do occur. Above all, we should ensure—this is why I am 100 per cent. behind what my right hon. Friend is doing—that there is a good news service and journalistic content in commercial radio stations. I would keep an open mind on whether local newspapers are necessarily the only way of achieving that goal.

Mr. Richard: The hon. Gentleman will know from studying the Bill that in Committee subsections (5) and (6) of

Clause 2 were added. Subsection (6) provides that
…in respect of the news content of the programmes broadcast…
the Authority shall
…ensure that the collection and preparation of such news broadcasts is independent and…shall require—
(a) that the collection and preparation of news is performed by suitably qualified journalists; and
(b) that a news service shall not, for the purpose of this section, be regarded as independent if it is provided by a newspaper circulating in the locality specified in the contract."
I understand the hon. Gentleman to be agreeing in effect with the sentiment behind subsection (6). He will also know that the Government are seeking to delete it on Report. Can we hope for his support for retaining it?

Mr. Fowler: It is not exactly the point I was making, but I will examine what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. The point I am making is that I believe that the new commercial radio system should be a quality system. It should have within it journalistic expertise, and I ask my right hon. Friend to keep under review whether that journalistic expertise is necessarily by definition always to be provided by local newspapers or whether some opportunity cannot also be given for new journalistic groups to come up and compete at the same time with the B.B.C. and with the local newspapers and thereby get a really good stage of competition in every local city and town.

Mr. O'Malley: I understand the concern of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) and that of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) that the regional and local newspapers should not be harmed by this legislation. They have an important rôle to play in twentieth century society. But the argument of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South was somewhat difficult to follow. He suggested that if anybody or everybody could set up a local radio station, if there were this state of perfect competition, he would no longer have the same worry for local newspapers. He would want his right hon. Friend not to implement the new Clauses.
In that chaotic situation, which I would never wish to see in this country, the local


newspapers, if they needed protection at all, would need more than they would under the Bill, which at least contains some restrictions on the number of stations. If one thing horrifies me more than the proposals for 60-plus radio stations, it is the proposals of the hon. Members for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) and Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) who would have many hundreds of such stations.
I therefore begin, as most hon. Members would begin in principle, I think, by recognising the importance and value of good thriving local newspapers. What we have to decide is whether those newspapers will need assistance as a result of the Bill and, if so, whether the assistance that the Minister proposes is the right way to deal with the problem or whether other alternatives are open.
No one can estimate with any certainty even the general effect of this legislation on local and regional newspapers. However, if we start from the reasonable assumption that at any one time the financial resources available for advertising are not very elastic, at least some of the income of these newspapers will be diverted to local radio stations. While there are some thriving local newspapers others, particularly in the less populated parts, are not financially healthy and their return on capital is not high.
In my area there is a weekly newspaper which goes into almost every house in my constituency. It is a good weekly newspaper. I do not always agree with its political comments but it serves a useful function and I would not want to see it harmed—rather the reverse.

9.30 p.m.

A number of options are open to us. The first and most sensible option is the proposal which my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) made in an intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Gloucester. The Minister suggested that the Labour Party broadly was in favour of commercial radio. I am completely and utterly opposed to the principle of commercial radio, whether it be local or regional, of the type he is proposing and to national commercial radio—

Mr. Chataway: rose—

Mr. O'Malley: Before the right hon. Gentleman jumps to his feet may I say I am aware of his earlier intervention If a Conservative Government insist that there shall be commercial radio, it would be much more sensible to establish a national commercial radio system rather than the one which is suggested. My hon. Friend's way of dealing with the problem is not to introduce commercial radio at all.
The second option is to give local newspaper companies the right to buy shares in the programme companies. There is another alternative to which I will refer briefly at the end of my remarks.
From what has been said on both sides of the House it is becoming obvious that this is a crude, clumsy and partial way of helping local newspapers which are likely to be affected by the introduction of commercial radio.
The Minister in his opening remarks, which were very lengthy—

Mr. Chataway: Mr. Chataway indicated dissent.

Mr. O'Malley: The right hon. Gentleman must not be so touchy. When my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) made speeches of a moderate length in Committee the Minister became irritable, but he has learned from experience and has today made a speech of great length. I can only conclude, just as in the latter days of the proceedings of the Committee, that the right hon. Gentleman is in no hurry to get the Bill through the House and will not insist on its being finished this week.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the facilities of the newspapers would be useful to commercial radio stations. This statement is in complete contradiction to the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South. I sympathise with and support the kind of local journalistic news-gathering structure that he was discussing. It is important that a staff of journalists should work for the local radio station than that the local radio station should have to depend, either wholly or partly, on the journalistic news-gathering efforts of journalists employed by local or regional newspapers in the vicinity.
It is disappointing that the Minister is deleting a provision of the Bill which would have achieved what was sought by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South. However, the problems are even more severe than those posed by that situation. If the facilities of local newspapers are found to be useful to commercial radio stations, editors of weekly newspapers could find themselves in a dilemma. Weekly newspapers often carry front page leads based on exclusive information. I can think of one occasion when an article in my local newspaper, the Rotherham Advertiser, on the future prospects for the steel industry contained information which was not to be found in any other newspaper. What is the editor of such a paper to do if one of his journalists receives that kind of information on the Tuesday or Wednesday before the paper goes to press on the Friday? Will he keep that information for his own front page lead on the Friday or will he say, "I will give that information to the local radio station because I have a small interest in that station"?

Mr. Kaufman: There is a further question which arises on my hon. Friend's extremely pertinent point. Will pressure be put on the proprietor of a newspaper to put out such news on the radio station, or will he be able to keep such information for his own newspaper? These are difficult pressures for journalists to deal with. This affects journalists' ethics.

Mr. O'Malley: I need not enlarge on the situation which my hon. Friend has outlined, but this sort of situation puts the editor in a difficult situation. Furthermore, it could have an effect on the journalist's remuneration. He might receive one payment for an article in his newspaper and yet another fee if it is used by the local radio station.

Mr. Fowler: If I may use the same Yorkshire analogy, is any difficulty experienced between Yorkshire Television and the Yorkshire Post which has a holding in Yorkshire Television, and does any conflict of interest arise when stories are used in one or other medium?

Mr. O'Malley: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman on that matter because I do not read the Yorkshire Post. I read newspapers which are widely sold in my constituency, plus the nationals. I see

no reason for reading a publication which is nothing less than an organ of the Conservative Party both in Yorkshire and in the country at large. [Interruption.] I am not avoiding the question. If the hon. Gentleman were to ask me about a newspaper of which I had knowledge, I would attempt to answer him frankly.
This whole question involves not only difficulties for the editor or journalist. There could also be problems involved in editorial influence being exerted on news bulletins on local radio stations. Indeed, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme raised an important point when he said that he could envisage a situation in which the local radio station in which a local newspaper company had shares would not be criticising the local newspaper and the local newspaper would not be criticising the local radio station. If we are to have this proliferation of the media, it is desirable that the newspaper on the one hand and the local radio station on the other hand should feel absolutely free to criticise the editorial policy, the statements and the conduct of each other. That is far from likely to happen with the kind of formula which attempts to assist the local newspapers as the Minister is proposing.
I turn now to a third difficulty and illustrate it by looking at what could happen if a commercial radio station were set up in the Sheffield area from which I come. I am bound to say to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) that while I took it from him once that Sheffield had a population of 615,000 including Rotherham, I would not expect him to use that kind of phrase in this House in my presence again, although I know he was led into it by an hon. Member from the South—the hon. Member for Hendon, North.

Mr. Richard: I should, of course, have said "Rotherham with Sheffield".

Mr. O'Malley: Yes, my hon. Friend should have done precisely that, but being a member of a tolerant political party I can easily forgive him.
To use a local example, if a commercial radio station were set up based on Sheffield, there would be to my knowledge certainly four regional or local


newspapers which would have a substantial claim to minority shareholdings in the local radio station. What the new Clause does not tell us is exactly what the size of that shareholding is to be. I would have thought that if it is true that particularly weekly newspapers, which have national advertising as well as advertising about the butchers shop—I say to the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough, who is shaking his head, that they have newspapers of that kind—are very badly hit, a 5 per cent. shareholding will be very little use to them. This is particularly true since, once this moves outside the big centres, if programmes of quality are to be produced and the general standards are to be high there will not be the kind of money in commercial radio which there will be in London, Birmingham, Manchester and perhaps in Glasgow. If the members of the musical profession, for example, are to have a fair deal out of this, there will certainly not be enormous profits for these local stations. There for they would be driven into a situation, using the Sheffield area as an example, in which if it were to be of any use to the local newspapers, they would need something like a 10 per cent. shareholding. With four local newspapers this would mean that the entrepreneur, the programme contractor, having done all the work and spent all the money, would quite suddenly find himself landed with four shareholders who had had nothing to do with the formation of the policy of the company, and one could not say to those shareholders that they could have only a tiny shareholding.
I have not discussed this with the local newspapers concerned and I do not even know whether they want to go into commercial radio, but there could be a situation in which each and every one of them would feel justified in asking for a 20 per cent. shareholding. This kind of example demonstrates that the whole structure is a nonsense.
My last point is this. There is a great deal of controversy about exactly how profitable these local radio stations will be. One can take one's pick of the estimates and forward looks that a number of consultancy organisations and interested parties have made in the last 12 months. While I think that there will

Certainly be some money coming to operators who are running stations in large conurbations, this will not be the case in some of the smaller stations serving populations of 150,000 or 200,000. I know that a number of newspaper proprietors feel this. There is no guarantee that one will go into an enterprise in which there is sure profit. That may be so in London but not amongst the smaller stations. Therefore commercial local radio in some areas may not only damage newspapers by taking advertisement revenue away from them; the return on capital from those commercial radio operations themselves will be pretty low.

9.45 p.m.

It seems to me, therefore, that the Government's arrangement can be regarded as satisfactory neither to programme contractors nor to newspapers in many areas of the country. I have not been convinced that it is wrong to give local newspapers some assistance. I have in mind my own local weekly newspaper, which is not part of a national group. However, I do not feel that this is the right way to go about it. A problem of this kind should be dealt with through broader policy measures. We all remember the number of Questions asking the Prime Minister for a Royal Commission on the problems of the national Press. There are problems for local weekly newspapers, and this is a subject with which the Government should be concerning themselves broadly rather than dealing with them by giving local newspapers a privilege they should not have.

The problem of maintaining good and healthy communication in local democracy will not be overcome by the shabby manoeuvre in which the Government are involved in giving a degree of unsatisfactory privilege to newspapers in the shape of an element of control of another vital area of communication. This kind of problem could be solved by the Government taking a broader look at the question as it is affected by the country's tax structure and by means of a detailed survey of both the national and local newspaper industry with a view to overcoming difficulties which will be made even worse by the onset of commercial radio.

After all the time that has been spent in Committee looking at possible alternatives, it is a disappointment to find that all that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to do is to come back having to depend on his silent majority on the Floor of the House, having been defeated in Committee where these matters were given the closest attention by hon. Members on both sides.

Mr. Proudfoot: Before launching into my speech, I wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his promotion. Perhaps I shall add to his joy when I say that an even bigger interest of mine than this subject is that of the Bolton Committee on Small Businesses, of which I believe my right hon. Friend is now in charge.
I liked the delicate way in which the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) described the drafting of this Bill. I think that I know who drafted it. I believe that it was that famous Parliamentary draftsman, Picasso. Certainly the Bill suggests that he was responsible.
I cannot figure out why it is that in this country we should go to the extraordinary length of giving newspapers the prescriptive right to buy in when in other countries great lengths are gone to to ensure that there is competition in localities between the media. Although the new Clause is a slight improvement on that which we knocked out in Committee, I feel that I cannot support it. I believe that the Minister made at least one irrelevant point when he said that there was expertise in the newspapers. I thought we had said enough in Committee to eliminate that thought. One is the printed word and the other is the spoken word. The techniques in the media are completely different.
The new Clause refers to a substantial circulation within a locality. One of the new phenomena of our society at this time is the give-away newspaper. Nobody seems to have thought in terms of giveaway local newspapers; it has always been newspapers for which the customer paid. On Tees side the give-away newspaper has a circulation of 160,000.
I doubt whether many hon. Members, even the former Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, realise that there is no definition of a newspaper in this coun-

try. The only near definition is given by the Post Office Corporation, which defines what we would think of in terms of a newspaper as having 50 per cent. advertising. The only reason that it does that is to give it cheaper postage. Some of these give-aways and some of the local papers which I have seen would certainly have more than 50 per cent. advertising in them. Therefore, according to the only definition of a newspaper in this country, they are not newspapers.
What is the interest of the newspaper? Is it merely circulation, the financial interests of the newspaper, a drop in net profit or a return on capital employed? If I were running a newspaper in a development area and there was the chance of a radio station coming in—it need not be a development area after the Chancellor's budget—I should immediately put in the latest presses, re-equip my business, use the 100 per cent. tax write-off the year afterwards when I was applying for the radio station licence and say, "Look, my profit has dropped" Looking at the criteria, the I.B.A. has to dig deep to find out what is happening to local newspapers. I believe that the newspapers will hardly be hurt at all, even if they are 250 years old.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would not only be a fair way to make a small fortune but would give control of the entire source of information in that one area?

Mr. Proudfoot: This is what disturbs me more than anything else. I have lived for a number of years in a town which has one newspaper. To think of that town having the ownership of the radio station in the same hands as the newspaper horrifies me. I am not saying that it is evil, but hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken about ownership of the media falling into single ownership. Other countries go out of their way to avoid it.
We have fallen into the trap of thinking of local newspapers as single entrepreneurial businesses. This is not so. The Associated Press has a chain of newspapers, and so has Thomson. The local goodies who will apply for these licences have been approached by the national chains, which say," We have the know how. You apply for the licence with your local connection, but give us a


share in your radio station." The Minister said that it was impossible to put detail into the Bill to make sure of the spread of ownership in these stations.
I repeat the details I gave in Committee about what happened in Australia:
(1) A person shall not own, or be in a position to exercise control, either directly or indirectly, of more than:
(a) one metropolitan commercial broadcasting station in any State;
(b) four metropolitan commercial broad casting stations in Australia;
(c) four commercial broadcasting stations in any one State; or
(d) eight commercial broadcasting stations in Australia."
This is a simple Clause. I think words could have been written in so that newspaper chains in this country could own more than a minimum amount as they can in Australia. In Australia there are 150 radio stations, which is many more than we shall have.
There was another matter about which I disagree with the Minister. I am sure he did not mean it. He said the system would promote healthy competition. He meant healthy competition between newspapers and the radio.
There will be no competition between commercial radio stations except in London where two radio stations are proposed at present.
The other mistake we make is assuming that the percentage of ownership of a station, in shares, indicates who gets control. I am convinced that strength of personality in a small company counts for more than ownership. A share ownership of 51 per cent. in any company in any country matters only when the chips are down.
I can imagine the local newspaper, with its supposed know-how on radio and on news, having a far greater influence on the radio station than its share percentage indicated.
Looking for practical examples, in my division there is a surprising number of newspapers: the Brighouse Echo, Heckmondwike Reporter, the Telegraph and Argus, the Yorkshire Evening Post, the Halifax Courier, and the Yorkshire Post. Most of them are peripheral. I assure hon. Members that probably I am the

only one in my constituency who sees them all.
How one would go about giving ownership to newspapers in an area like that is absolutely beyond me. Looking at newspapers today, one sees that the local newspapers are in a good position. If they go over to offset lithography, photographic setting and computer setting, they are then in business and are doing something totally different from what local radio can do.
I am convinced that politicians on both sides of this House tend to look under their beds for bogy men. This is one of the bogy men that politicians in this House are frightened of. They think that if we offend local newspapers, or imagine we will offend them, by saying they cannot have a prescriptive right, they will do us down. I am convinced that will not happen. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) and I have said that we do not want to eliminate local newspapers; we do not want to give them the prescriptive right.
For those reasons I shall not be able to support my right hon. Friend's new Clause.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: During the course of the Committee stage of the Bill, a Clause similar to the one the Minister is now seeking to introduce was thrown out. The Committee Stage of this Bill revealed certain difficulties between laissez faire Tories and the libertarian wing of the Labour Party.
I found myself feeling, with the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot), a common view of what we ought to do in this respect. That is to preserve a wide variety of sources of information and take no action which would reduce their number. The reason why we threw out the Clause is still as valid as it was in the Committee stage. We felt that the effect of the original Clause, and the effect of this Clause, was to lose a chance of increasing the number of sources of information. It has the effect of running against what in many countries of the Western world attempts have been made to avoid: the gradual reduction in the variety of the media. If we continue the present trend for very long, we shall be able to buy the pro-Common Market newspaper of our


choice. It means that a different accent is heard but the same message comes across. We are not very far away from that.
What the new Clause fundamentally seeks to do—and this is why we object to it—is to facilitate mergers on a local level—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,

That the Sound Broadcasting Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Jopling.]

Question again proposed, That the Clause be read a Second time

Mr. Jenkins: It is not my intention to delay the House for more than a few moments, but the new Clause moves in the wrong direction. Many legislatures have sought to prevent the establishment by merger of a situation which operates in the Soviet Union, where one has a choice of Pravda or lzvestia. We are not very far from that now, through commercial causes. During the last 10 years the number of newspapers has decreased sadly. What the Government are seeking to do is not merely to allow that process to take place, but to give a prescriptive right to newspapers to say that they will be the only source of local information in an area. That is already likely to happen without any help from us.
The reason why we objected to a similar new Clause in Committee, and why we object to this new Clause is that it seeks to do something which ought to be opposed by both sides of the House. It seeks to legalise communications incest, and that is something against which hon. Members on all sides ought to set their faces,

Mr. Kaufman: I ought, like the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler), to declare an interest, namely, that I am a journalist and a member of the National Union of Journalists.
I believe that opportunities of employment for journalists should be protected and, if possible, extended.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend a fully paid-up member of his union?

Mr. Kaufman: My card is fully paid up. I pay by banker's order, and I am paid up in advance. Although I wish for opportunities for employment for journalists, and wish their employment opportunities to be safeguarded, I should not regard that employment as satisfactory if they were simply to be the kept men of disc jockeys, which is what the new Clause is providing.
The fact is that the Minister for Industrial Development sits there looking insouciant, as well he may, because he now has this squalid irrelevance off his hands. He detested it when he had ministerial responsibility for it. He has now gone on to something much more important, namely, providing industrial help for Greater Manchester, about which I have written to him today.
The Bill is in its final stages, but that does not mean that the House ought to pass over, in a cursory way, the serious implications of what the Government are proposing in these two new Clauses. What the Government are proposing, and what only the hon. Members for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) and Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) realise, is a commercial set-up which has nothing whatever to do with safeguarding newspapers, but has everything to do with providing financial help for newspapers which do not necessarily need it.
The implications of what the Government are proposing in these new Clauses bears little examination. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South drew attention to the tie up between Yorkshire Television and the Yorkshire Post. When the Yorkshire Postwas permitted to buy into Yorkshire Television—in the same way as the new Clauses would provide a mandatory opportunity to do with regard to commercial radio—the Yorshire Post was part of a small company whose viability might have been threatened by the introduction of Yorkshire Television. But the Yorkshire Posthas been bought up by a vast and exceptionally prosperous newspaper chain—United Newspapers. It is a much more savoury chain that the Yorkshire Postused to be, but United Newspapers can have no possible need to be assisted by any revenues of Yorkshire Television. Nevertheless, it can now syphon


off some of the money of Yorkshire Television to sustain its newspapers in other parts of the country and to sustain, for example, the magazine Punch which is part of what it owns.
In the same way we can go further. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) mentioned the London Evening Standardwhich is in a rocky financial position. It is possible that it might be damaged by the introduction of London commercial radio. We have all read in the last few days that Mr. Ruper Murdoch now has 20 per cent. of the non-voting shares in Beaver brook Newspapers.
If Beaver brook Newspapers is allowed to buy into the London commercial radio to help sustain the Evening Standard, which might be damaged, although we do not know, by London commercial radio, Mr. Rupert Murdoch, who has no local regional papers in London but who has two exceptionally profitable national newspapers, will nevertheless be able to profit through the Evening Standard being sustained by being allowed a mandatory right to buy into commercial radio. What the Bill is providing for is not solely to sustain those journals which it is said will be damaged by introducing some necessary and squalid piece of legislation but it is allowing, further, that all kinds of prosperous companies shall be able to siphon off public money because it is money paid by the public.
These new Clauses are not only unnecessary but they have all the disadvant-

ages mentioned by the hon. Members for Brighouse and Spenborough and Hendon, North—the only two hon. Members opposite who any longer believe in anything that is in their election manifesto. [Interruption.] It is no use hon. Members giggling. The Chancellor of the Exchequer two weeks ago introduced a Budget which reversed practically everything on which the Government were elected. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] We have seen the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation reintroduced, investment grants, grants for shipbuilding and all the rest.

The only thing that is left is some kind of pledge about commercial radio. It is only those two hon. Gentlemen on the Government side who believe in their election manifesto. The remainder of hon. Members opposite are interpreting the words of the manifesto to suit this miserable piece of drafting, not by Picasso but, I would say, by William Burroughs who has now become the parliamentary draftsman. It will not do for the Government to introduce this. If there are not sufficient hon. Members opposite with the courage and principles of the two hon. Members I have mentioned to join us in defeating this, I hope that another place which still has its existence and its uses will reverse this piece of squalid legislation that the House is being asked to accept.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 154.

Division No. 116.]
AYES
[10.8 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Cooke, Robert
Goodhew, Victor


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Coombs, Derek
Gower, Raymond


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cormack, Patrick
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Costain, A. P.
Gray, Hamish


Awdry, Daniel
Crouch, David
Green, Alan


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Dean, Paul
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Deedes. Rt. Hn. W. F.
Grylls, Michael


Benyon, W.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Gummer, Selwyn


Biffen, John
Eden, Sir John
Gurden, Harold


Biggs-Davison, John
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Boscawen, Robert
Emery, Peter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bowden, Andrew
Eyre, Reginald
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bray, Ronald
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fidler, Michael
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Havers, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Hawkins, Paul


Buck, Antony
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hay, John


Burden, F. A.
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hayhoe, Barney


Carlisle, Mark
Fortescue, Tim
Hicks, Robert


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fowler, Norman
Hiley, Joseph


Chapman, Sydney
Fox, Marcus
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fry, Peter
Holt, Miss Mary


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gibson-Watt, David
Hordern, Peter


Clegg, Walter
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Cockerham, Eric
Goodhart, Philip
Howell, David (Guildford)




Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Spence, John


Hunt, John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Sproat, Iain


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Mudd, David
Stainton, Keith


James, David
Murton, Oscar
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jessel, Toby
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Neave, Airey
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Normanton, Tom
Stokes, John


Kilfedder, James
Onslow, Cranley
Sutcliffe, John


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Osborn, John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Kinsey, J. R.
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Tebbit, Norman


Kitson, Timothy
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Parkinson, Cecil
Tugendhat, Christopher


Knox, David
Percival, Ian
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Lambton, Lord
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lane, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Waddington, David


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Longden, Gilbert
Raison, Timothy
Ward, Dame Irene


Loveridge, John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Warren, Kenneth


Luce, R. N.
Redmond, Robert
Weatherill, Bernard


MacArthur, Ian
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


McCrindle, R. A.
Rees, Peter (Dover)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


McLaren, Martin
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wiggin, Jerry


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Maddan, Martin
Ridsdale, Julian
Winterton, Nicholas


Madel, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Mawby, Ray
Rost, Peter
Woodnutt, Mark


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Worsley, Marcus


Miscampbell, Norman
Scott, Nicholas
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Sharples, Richard
Younger, Hn. George


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)



Moate, Roger
Simeons, Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Michael Jopling and Mr. John Stradling Thomas.


Monro, Hector
Soref, Harold



Montgomery, Fergus
Speed, Keith



More, Jasper




NOES


Albu, Austen
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Armstrong, Ernest
Foley, Maurice
Mackintosh, John P.


Atkinson, Norman
Foot, Michael
Maclennan, Robert


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ford, Ben
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Barnes, Michael
Forrester, John
McNamara, J. Kevin


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Garrett, W. E.
Marks, Kenneth


Bidwell, Sydney
Gilbert, Dr. John
Marsden, F.


Bishop, E. S.
Gorst, John
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Meacher, Michael


Booth, Albert
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mendelson, John


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hamling, William
Mikardo, Ian


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Millan, Bruce


Buchan, Norman
Hardy, Peter
Milne, Edward


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Murray, Ronald King


Cant, R. B.
Horam, John
Oakes, Gordon


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Ogden, Eric


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Huckfield, Leslie
O'Malley, Brian


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Oram, Bert


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oswald, Thomas


Concannon, J. D.
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Palmer, Arthur


Conlan, Bernard
Janner, Greville
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pentland, Norman


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davidson, Arthur
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Judd, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kaufman, Gerald
Probert, Arthur


Deakins, Eric
Lambie, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Delargy, H. J.
Lamond, James
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Latham, Arthur
Richard, Ivor


Dempsey, James
Lawson, George
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Doig, Peter
Leonard, Dick
Roper, John


Dormand, J. D.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rose, Paul B.


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Dunn, James A.
Lomas, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Dunnett, Jack
Loughlin, Charles
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Eadie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ewing, Henry
McCann, John
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Faulds, Andrew
McCartney, Hugh
Sillars, James


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McElhone, Frank








Skinner, Dennis
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wellbeloved, James


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Tinn, James
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Spearing, Nigel
Torney, Tom
Whitehead, Phillip


Spriggs, Leslie
Varley, Eric G.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Stallard, A. W.
Wainwright, Edwin
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Steel, David
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)



Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Wallace, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Watkins, David
Mr. John Golding and Mr. Tom Pendry.


Strang, Gavin
Weitzman, David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTION (SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO NEWSPAPER SHAREHOLDINGS IN RELATION TO LOCAL SOUND BROADCASTS)

(1) Notwithstanding anything in section (Special provisions as to newspaper share holdings in relation to local sound broadcasts) of this Act, the Authority shall not require arrangements to be made in relation to a newspaper as mentioned in subsection (5) of that section if it is their opinion that it would be contrary to the public interest for the proprietor of that newspaper to acquire a shareholding in accordance with subsection (6) of that section, and the Minister concurs in that opinion.
(2) Every contract to which that section applies shall include provisions whereby, if during the currency of the contract arrangements are made for extending (otherwise than by way of any minor modification) the range of transmission of programmes to be provided under the contract, whether by an alteration in the construction or operation of one or more stations or by the addition of one or more stations or otherwise, subsections (2) to (7) of that section and subsection (1) of this section shall have effect in relation to those

arrangements as if they were a contract to which that section applies.
(3) The Authority shall not be required to act in accordance with subsections (2) to (7) of section (Special provisions as to newspaper shareholdings in relation to local sound broadcasts) of this Act in connection with the making of a contract with a programme contractor if—
(a) the contract is to specify the same station as was, or the same stations as were, specified in a previous contract to which that section applied (whether the previous contract was with the same programme contractor or a different programme contractor), and
(b) the range or aggregate range of transmission of broadcasts under the new contract is not to be greater (otherwise than by way of any minor modification) than under the previous contract.
(4) Where subsection (3) of this section applies, it shall not be construed as precluding the Authority from requiring such arrangements as are mentioned in subsections (5) to (7) of section (Special provisions as to newspaper shareholdings in relation to local sound broadcasts) of this Act to be made in connection with the new contract in respect of a newspaper whose proprietor acquired a shareholding in accordance with such arrangements in connection with the previous contract, if it appears to the Authority that by reason of special circumstances it would be just and equitable to do so.—[Mr. Chataway.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

ACCUMULATION OF INTERESTS IN SOUND PROGRAMME CONTRACTS

(1) Before entering into a sound programme contract the Authority shall seek to ascertain—


5
(a) whether the person or any of the persons with whom the contract is proposed to be made is (either alone or in partnership with one or more other persons) entitled to the benefit of one or more existing sound programme contracts, and


10
(b) where the person or any of the persons with whom the contract is proposed to be made is a body corporate, whether that body corporate, or any associate of that body corporate, or any participant in that body corporate or in any such associate, is a person or one of the persons entitled to the benefit of one or more existing sound programme contracts, or is a participant in a body corporate so entitled or included among the persons so entitled or in an associate of a body corporate so entitled or so included


15
and, having regard to any matters ascertained by them under this subsection, the Authority shall consider whether, if the proposed contract were made, any one person would, in any one or more of the capacities mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection or in any combination of any such capacities, have an aggregate interest in the benefit of two or more sound programme contracts.


20
(2) If, in the circumstances mentioned in the preceding subsection, it appears to the Authority that a person would have such an aggregate interest and that, having regard to—


(a) the nature and extent of that aggregate interest, and


(b) any other circumstances appearing to the Authority to be material,


25
the existence of that aggregate interest might prejudice the performance by the Authority of any duty imposed on them by this Act, or imposed on them in relation to local sound broadcasting services by the principal Act, the Authority shall refrain from entering into the proposed contract.


30
(3) In this section 'sound programme contract' means a contract for the provision of local sound broadcasts, and 'existing sound programme contract', in relation to any contract proposed to be entered into by the Authority, means a sound programme contract which is in force at the time when the Authority are considering entering into the proposed contract; and 'participant', in relation to a body corporate, means a person who (whether alone or jointly with one or more other persons, and whether directly or through one or more nominees) holds or is beneficially entitled to not less than one-twentieth of the shares in that body corporate.—[Mr. Chataway.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Chataway: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With the new Clause we are discussing sub-Amendment (a), in line 19, leave out from 'interest' to second 'the' in line 25, and Amendment No. 64, in Schedule 1, page 13, line 1, column 2, after '(1)', insert:
'before the definition of "broadcast relay station" there shall be inserted the words"'associate' in relation to a body corporate (including a programme contractor which is a body corporate) means a body corporate which is a member of the same group as that body corporate; and for this purpose any two bodies corporate are to be treated as members of the same group if one of them is a body corporate of which the other is a subsidiary (within the meaning of section 154 of the Companies Act 1948) or if both of them are subsidiaries (within the meaning of that section) of one and the same body corporate," and'.

Mr. Chataway: The new Clause is intended to meet an undertaking I gave in Committee, which I think was acceptable to both sides.

Mr. Richard: May I be referred to the date in Committee?

Mr. Chataway: In our discussions on Clause 7 it was argued by a number of hon. Members on both sides that there might be a danger of a large newspaper group accumulating an interest in more than one local radio station and acquiring in total a very large shareholding in the system as a whole. I think there were anxieties at other points in our discussions about other companies, not necessarily newspaper companies, equally coming into a dominant position.
The new Clause is intended to meet these anxieties. It requires the Authority to examine the circumstances of applicants and those associated with them to


see whether, if they were awarded a contract, their holding would add up to an aggregate interest in the service as a whole. For this purpose subsection (4), the definition subsection, excludes from consideration people whose beneficial shareholding is less than 5 per cent. This means that the Authority does not have to examine cases where the shareholding is less than 5 per cent., bat it examines cases of more than 5 per cent. with an eye to two things. One is the nature and extent of the interest, its size, how widely it is dispersed and how much control its existence denotes, and the other is the circumstances, such as the reputation, character and known policies of the individuals who would have the interest.
If it comes to an affirmative conclusion the Authority is then under a duty to refrain from entering into the proposed contract. If it believes that a group has too large a shareholding in the system as a whole, a shareholding that would be likely to be damaging, it will not allow that group to participate in any further consortium.
The Clause has two effects. The first is to draw the Authority's attention to the dangers, to make it more readily attuned to the maintenance of vigilance against this particular hazard. Second, it imposes upon the Authority an actual duty to take the action I have described, a duty that it has no choice but to exercise. Therefore, although the Clause is of formidable length, I hope its nature will be clear to hon. Members.

New Clause 4

INFORMATION AS TO PROGRAMME CONTRACTS AND APPLICATIONS FOR SUCH CONTRACTS

5
(1) Where the Authority enter into a contract with a programme contractor for the provision of local sound broadcasts to be transmitted from one or more stations, the Authority shall, on request made by any person and on payment by him of such sum (if any) as the Authority may reasonably require, furnish to that person such one or more of the following as may be specified in the request, that is to say—


(a) a copy of that contract;


10
(b) a statement of the number of applications (if any) received by the Authority for a programme contract for the provision of local sound broadcasts to be transmitted from that station or those stations, other than the application received from the 10 contractor with whom the contract is made; and



(c) subject to the next following subsection, a copy of so much of that contractor's application for such a contract as related to the character of the local sound broadcasts which he proposed to provide if his application were accepted by the Authority.


15
(2) The Authority shall not be required by virtue of the preceding subsection to furnish to any person such a copy as is mentioned in paragraph (c) of that subsection until after local sound broadcasts provided by the contractor under the contract in question have begun to be transmitted by the Authority.—[Mr. Chataway]


Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Gorst: Can my hon. Friend explain this? In considering the aggregated shareholdings, if a television company and a newspaper company were both shareholders, both possibly having an interest in watering down the competition from this new, third medium, would the newspaper and television interests be aggregated by the Authority under the Clause?

Mr. Chataway: Only if they were under common ownership. The new Clause is intent upon ensuring that no group, whether a newspaper group, a television group or whatever its nature, should have too large an interest in the system as a whole, an interest which would be likely to work against the best interests of the new service. In considering that the Authority has to look behind the organisation at the personalities involved.
I hope it will be clear that the new Clause spells out with accuracy and in some detail the undertaking I gave to the Committee upstairs which was welcomed on both sides.

Mr. Richard: As the right hon. Gentleman has said, this fulfils an undertaking he gave in Committee. Although the Clause is of almost Proustian complexity, it seems on the whole to fulfil at least the intent behind the assurance. Therefore, on behalf of the Opposition I welcome it and thank the Minister for it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Chataway: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause also gives effect to an undertaking I gave in Committee. The hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), a number of his hon Friends and one or two of my hon. Friends were anxious that there should be the maximum publicity about the whole contract procedure and that people should be in a position to know after a contract had been awarded what kind of promises had been made by the contractors before they secured it.
It was understood and accepted in Committee that there must be a limit to what applicants are required to publicise and that there are reasonable grounds for them to wish to maintain secrets at the time of their application. It would be very unfair if those who form a consortium and who are perhaps now working for the B.B.C. or a commercial organisation were required to have their names pubilicised at the time of their application, before they even knew whether they would be accepted. It would be unfair if the plans which they laid before the Authority were made public months before they could go on the air, enabling their competitors to steal all their best ideas.
I hope that in the Clause I have gone as far as is reasonable in requiring the Authority to ensure that material is publicised. It will enable anyone to ascertain the total number of applicants, a point to which a number of hon. Members attached importance because they feared there might be a situation in which all the potential applicants were getting together in an area and only one application went in. If that happened it would be known.

Mr. Whitehead: The right hon. Gentleman is saying that we shall now know the number of applicants, but a number is a number. Surely it would be much better to know also the nature of the unsuccessful tenders so that after the successful contractor had begun transmission the public could judge the Authority's performance in deciding between one contract and others.

Mr. Chataway: I do not think it would be reasonable to require that the unsuccessful tenderers' application should be made public. They might have had some very good ideas which they wished to implement in another area. I do not believe it is possible for the public as a whole to check in detail in this way upon the decisions the Authority is making Probably the hon. Gentleman and I would have a difference of approach in the matter. I believe it is extremely important that the Authority should take the decision and that it has the responsibility. We should be under no illusion that any kind of public tribunal can do it for the Authority. It would not be reasonable to require all unsuccessful applicants to have their plans, which they might have the opportunity to implement elsewhere, publicised.
Anyone who wants to find out the details will be able to see the contract which defines the legal relationship between the programme contractor and the Authority. That was something which hon. Members in the Committee wanted to see published.
Finally, and perhaps most important, the Clause will enable members of the public to ascertain those parts of the application which relate to the character of the programmes. That, I think, was the main thing that was wanted by a number of hon. Members.

10.30 p.m.

Hon. Members wanted, after the contractor had gone on the air, to be able to see what he had promised in the way of programmes when he won his contract. The arrangement will be that at some point after the contractor has gone on the air with his programmes he will be required to publish those parts of his application which described his programme plans. This will be of benefit to the public and may well also be of benefit to the Authority in that it will strengthen its hand in dealing with any contractor who is clearly not living up to the promises he made when he secured his contract. This, as I say, meets points put by hon. Members on both sides in Committee and I hope it will be acceptable to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With new Clause 4, sub-Amendments (b), in line 7, leave out paragraph (b), and (c), in line 14, at end insert
'and similar details furnished to the Authority by all unsuccessful applicants for such a contract',
standing in the name of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), may be discussed.

Mr. Golding: I wish to speak to the Amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is very important in any publication of contracts that the entire contract be published. I do not think we should get ourselves into a situation whereby we have partial publication.

Mr. Chataway: I make it clear that the Authority must be prepared to provide an entire contract. The entire contract is to be provided.

Mr. Golding: If the whole contract must be provided and the whole contract can be published, that meets the criticism. It is important that we should insist that the contract should be published or provided as quickly as possible. This is not the case with the new Clause as it stands. It provides that it shall come into effect only
after local sound broadcasts provided by the contractor under the contract in question have begun to be transmitted by the Authority.
I would prefer discussion to take place at the earliest possible opportunity.
When contracts are awarded, we want two things: comparison of contracts, of promises made to the Authority, and publication of each and every bid. Unfortunately, it appears that the new Clause would prevent the Authority from publishing the unsuccessful bids at the time the contracts are being awarded. I would prefer each of the outline bids to be published at the time they are being considered.
There is a great case to be made not only for publication of the bids but also for establishment of a public inquiry into the bids themselves rather than having our present system whereby there is secret bidding for and awarding of contracts and afterwards an inquest, based on totally incomplete information. Such a situation is entirely unsatisfactory. It would be better in an open society

if we had the stages suggested in our Amendments. If each group bidding for a contract were to publish its bid, and there was public discussion before the contract was awarded, that would be a preferable system.
Although the Clause goes part of the way to achieving a more rational inquest after the award of the contract when it is apparent that contractors are failing in some way, it does not go all the way. There is dissatisfaction with some contractors, particularly London Weekend, because they have failed to live up to their promises. It has been left to the Free Communications Group to publish the London Weekend bid. I am glad that in future it will be the responsibility of the I.B.A. to publish a contract after it has been awarded and the stations have started to operate.
Arguments can be made against the open contract system, the most important of which is the fear that competitors will steal one's ideas. Having seen how long it takes an idea in television to be realised, I wonder whether that is a real fear. I have often heard my hon. Friends pointing out that one contract in the last round was awarded partly on the basis that the Burtons would appear for the company. It is only in this year when there is talk of renewing contracts, that there is a positive move for the Burtons to appear on the company's programmes. The fear that other companies will steal ideas can be brushed aside.
The same applies to the argument against the disclosure of personnel, that their security would be put in jeopardy. This is the most usual argument in the industry, and I do not accept it. If entrepreneurs are trying to make much more money in one concern than they are making at present, this is one of the risks they should be prepared to take. If their bid is unsuccessful, it should have been disclosed to their employers or their companies that they were prepared to be disloyal and to transfer for more money.
I do not see that a contract in which a person seeks to sell out to the highest bidder and tries to make more money in the market place should be guaranteed secrecy of operation. The risk may be thought to be worth taking and may be handsomely compensated for if the


person concerned is lucky enough to be in the group that wins the contract.
The new Clause goes some way to meet the objections which have been made against the London Weekend situation, and for that reason I shall not vote against it. However, the Clause does not go all the way, and I hope that when we reach the 1976 situation we shall have a more open discussion of the allocation of contracts than is the situation at present in television.

Mr. Proudfoot: There is one point I wish to take up with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). He made an error when he spoke about the length of time it took for a new idea to get through. I am sure he must have been thinking of television experience rather than radio experience, because radio has shown itself to be very flexible. Indeed, it is the very flexibility of radio which makes this new Clause something of a nonsense.
I do not think this Clause will add much to the situation. The first five successful stations will find that as soon as their contracts are made they will be immediately copied by the next five stations, the five stations after that and so on through the years. We have only to look at the programmes on Radio London, Radio Humberside or Radio Stoke to find what a nonsense this Clause is.
In terms of local radio the programme details are fragmentary. The most important thing the local stations should be pushed to do—and since it is such good commercial sense they will not need much pushing—is to put on plenty of material with local content. I am thinking here of experience in Australia where checks are carried out to see what is produced in the course of the year. In Australia programmes contain 15 per cent. advertising, 48 per cent. light entertainment and, incredibly, 12 minutes of family information, current affairs and news services and in some cases sport.
If experience there is any guide to what will happen here, that is the sort of material that will go out, and there is no reason to think that in a commercial system in this country it would be any different. Therefore, we are asking potential contractors to agree to write in a lot of nonsense. When I was involved in a

radio station, the directors wanted at first to put on nonsense.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: How did the operation of the hon. Gentleman's radio station compare with the Australian broadcasting station, bearing in mind some of the interesting speeches he made on the subject some time ago?

Mr. Proudfoot: We had to face a few minor difficulties, such as three miles of sea between ourselves and dry land, which was a bit of a barrier. The Post Office would not let us telephone the ship and lack ofcommunication—which meant that we were unable to rap a disc jockey over the knuckles—was a great drawback. The local entrepreneurs who set up radio stations all tended to become carbon copies of the B.B.C. They were totally wrong in that attitude. If contractors are to be successful with commercial radio stations, they should not treat the sort of programmes put out on the B.B.C. as coming down to them on tablets of stone.
When one looks at it fragmentally, one sees that it will be only sport, local news and local information which will be able to be given. I do not think that we should push them more than that. If we did, we would not get as good a service from these commercial stations as we would otherwise hope. This new Clause may satisfy a lot of do-gooders but I do not think that in the end it will help the quality of local radio.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Whitehead: In rising for the first time to participate in the debate this evening, I should like to add my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on his promotion, if it is promotion, away from broadcasting.
I suppose he is participating tonight as one of the most remarkable examples of life after death since the boy king, Tutankhamen, except that unlike the Pharaoh, now on exhibition, who spent so many centuries among the whitening bones of his predecessors, the right hon. Gentleman has brought the warm quivering body of his successor from the Department of Trade and Industry to learn the hard way that the Bill appears first to be laming the duck and then sustaining it. We are not opposing this new Clause, which goes part of the way,


and only part of the way, to meet proposals made from this side during Committee stage on the nature of contractural procedures.
I cannot follow the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) in his offshore memoirs of what life was like on a pirate radio station.
It is true, and would be accepted on both sides, that radio is a desperately serious matter and that radio broadcasting is not an unimportant pigeon-hole to be left alone at the I.B.A. for a few people to make a killing, and for nobody to mind much about the content of programmes and who operators are to be.
It is crucially important who the operators should be, how promise can be matched against performance, how the Authority can judge one applicant against another and how the performance of a successful applicant can be judged against the promise of an unsuccessful applicant.
My hon. Friend the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) has already touched on the extent to which procedures are similar in television. When we had the alleged clean sweep in 1967, many people were left at the end of the day in utter confusion as to who had been awarded what and why.
If I may quote from a recently published book by the distinguished television critic Peter Black, remarking on the effect on an unsuccessful contractor at that time, Lord Derby of T.W.W., he says:
The only criticism Lord Hill had ever offered to explain his act, complained Derby, was when he asked why he had done it, 'Because you are a London-based company', Lord Hill muttered.
A mutter from Lord Hill a few months later and a comment from Lord Derby at the same time is not satisfactory.
When we look at the submission by Harlech Television for the contract, afterwards pirated and published by the Free Communications Group, we can see how far from the high promises was the performance. That is why, in Committee, we said consistently that there should be as open a process of examination of contracts and of the way contracts were examined as possible, given the difficulties about some element of confidential disclosure.
In attempting to answer an intervention of mine earlier on my own Amendment to new Clause 4, the Minister said that it would not be a good idea to add the words
and similar details furnished to the Authority by all unsuccessful applicants for such a contract.
The right hon. Gentleman argued that the unsuccessful contractors might have good ideas. Presumably, therefore, we are trying to protect the unsuccessful contractors. But their first claim upon the attention of the public would be precisely that they might feel, after a year or two of the successful applicant's transmissions, that they had had a far better case to put to the Authority and that they would have done the job better. Because of that, they would be the first to favour publication of their applications as against that of the successful contractor.
Then the right hon. Gentleman said that a public tribunal should not be doing the job of the Authority. But this would not be a public tribunal. Very properly within the rules of order, we have not sought to go back to those proceedings in Committee where we demanded public hearings into the various submissions. Although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme that this would be the best way of proceeding, all that we say now is that the public, which is ultimately the guarantor and master of the Authority, through Parliament, should have an opportunity to judge the way in which the Authority has carried out its duty in assessing rival bids for contracts. We feel this strongly, in view of the way in which the Authority has failed to carry out its function satisfactorily in the past.
The great advantage of open bidding is that the element of secrecy which so poisoned the atmosphere between the rival applicants for the various contracts in 1967 can be avoided.
It has been said by the right hon. Gentleman that it would be unfair if the names of individuals, perhaps now working for the B.B.C., ware mentioned, and that is why he has drawn the new Clause as narrowly as he has, so that all we shall get is the submission, which the underground Press probably will give us rather faster than the Authority, and the sacred


number of those applications which have been put forward.
Surely the only reason for withholding the names and the nature of the consortia which have been unsuccessful is, perhaps as the Minister has said, to protect given individuals. But the House must weigh two relative disadvantages. There is the disadvantage to some individuals of their names being known to be associated with a bid which might not be successful or to have been associated with a bid which failed. Clearly, there would not be a case for linking some distinguished B.B.C. executive with the failed tender of an unsuccessful consortium, although the programme ideas of that consortium some time later might be weighed by the public against the successful contractor.
However, in the case of the successful contractor there is everything to be said, because of the relative disadvantages concerned, for publishing the names of all those involved in the consortium. I am very sorry that the Clause says nothing about that, though I presume that it would be possible to allow the public to see when it scrutinises the successful contract at a later stage precisely who were the people involved with it at the moment of application and, even more important, at the moment of success.
Again, in the application for franchise by London Weekend Television, some of those connected with the organisation at the moment of the application like Mr. John Freeman were not there on the day transmission began.
I submit that the great danger of withholding the names of individuals and of not letting the public know who are the individuals concerned is that we know from bitter experience that a very devious game is played by the rival consortia before the moment of choice at the Authority.
For example, when the various rival combines came forward for their interviews at Brompton Road in 1967, in several cases the same individuals appeared in different guises. One individual appeared in the morning as the senior programme executive on the board of Rediffusion Television. At that moment Rediffusion Television, in its innocence, thought he was the main card

it had to play. He was the first programme man it had ever had on its board, full of ideas and associated with the new programmes that it was putting forward. What Rediffusion did not know, what the public did not know and what no one except Lord Hill and the members of his interviewing board knew—they discovered it to their surprise—was that that same individual turned up in the afternoon wearing a quite different hat as a member of the consortium for London Weekend Television.
It is this kind of secrecy and behaviour which regrettably leads the public to suppose afterwards that the rival consortia themselves ought to be exposed to the public gaze much more than in the past and much more than has been the case under the Bill, as amended.
I regret that new Clause 4 does no more than allow us at a later stage to see the successful applicant's tender and to know the number of other unsuccessful tenders which have been put forward. Since, as I said earlier, we shall get the one from the underground Press far more quickly than the presses of Brompton Road—and the number is supremely relevant—I ask the Minister to think again on new Clause 4.

Mr. Richard: I have considerable sympathy with the points which my hon. Friend has just made, particularly about the naming of the unsuccessful applicants for a contract. I should have thought this was the point the Minister could understand, seriously consider and, if necessary, insert in another place. It would be somewhat churlish if we on this side of the House were not to recognise that the Minister has in new Clause 4 gone a considerable distance towards meeting some of the points which we made in Committee. This whole sphere has caused a great deal of public concern, particularly in relation to television. Although the provisions of this new Clause are at the moment confined to the provision of local sound broadcasts, I trust that at some future date when the whole of the Television Act comes to be considered—it is bound to be considered at some stage—the principle which has been accepted by the Government in new Clause 4 in relation to radio can be extended to television. The Minister half hinted in Committee that


he favoured that general approach although he could not write it into the Bill for obvious technical reasons.
Therefore, on behalf of the Opposition, I give qualified approval to what the Minister has done. We do not think he has gone far enough. Nevertheless, we are grateful for the small mercy which he has given us in this respect.

Mr. Chataway: As the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) asked me to reply, perhaps I should say that, for the reasons which I have already spelt out, it would not be fair to go any further than I have gone in the new Clause. If we included the provision which the hon. Gentleman would like to see in the Bill, it would have the effect of deterring fairly good applicants from applying.
I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) that it would be right to consider in any post-1976 legislation whether there should be a similar provision relating to television. That would give us an opportunity of looking again at the points which the hon. Member for Derby, North wishes to have considered, though I appreciate mainly relating to television.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

AWARD OF PRIZES IN LOCAL SOUND BROADCASTING

Section 3(4) of the principal Act shall be amended by the insertion at the end of that subsection of the following words:—

'Provided that for purposes of local sound broadcasting to which this subsection applies only, the maximum value of a prize to be offered in any programme shall be £25'.—[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
With this new Clause it might be for the convenience of the House to discuss new Clause 6, "Value of prizes in local sound broadcasts".
Section 6(1) of the principal Act shall be amended by the insertion at the end of that subsection of the following words:—
'Provided that, for purposes of local sound broadcasting only, the maximum value of a prize to be offered in any programme shall be £25'.
The intention of new Clauses 5 and 6 is to amend Section 3(4) of the Television Act, 1964, relating to the provision of prizes. That Section provides:
Nothing shall be included in any programme broadcast by the Authority, whether in an advertisement or not, which offers any prize of significant value, whether competed for or not, or any gift of significant value, being a prize or gift which is available only to persons receiving that programme, or in relation to which any advantage is given to such persons.
It will be observed that the subsection rests on the phrase,
any prize of significant value".
Many people are asking whether the interpretation placed on that subsection by the television authorities is being observed as it affects programmes such as "The Sky's the Limit" and "Golden Shot". Indeed, are round-the-world trips prizes of significant value?
The intention of the new Clause is to establish a reasonable criteria for prizes by indicating a not unreasonable sum of £25. I recognise that many members of the public receive pleasure from participating in broadcast programmes which offer financial inducements for individual participation.
The principal Act, because it remains silent, has been interpreted in a way which I believe was never intended, because prizes of significant value are given on the programmes which I have illustrated. Acceptance of new Clause 5 would provide a standard for the new authorities in the establishment of local commercial broadcasting stations.

Mr. Chataway: I appreciate the concern of the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris), but I think that he has misinterpreted Section 3(4) of the parent Act. What that subsection is intended to exclude is the prize that is given to the viewer. When the Bill was being considered, there was concern that there should not in this country be large inducements to viewers to watch one programme rather than another. I speculate, but I imagine that one of the major concerns was to ensure that there


was not unfair competition for the B.B.C. by wealthy contractors offering lottery prizes to attract viewers to their programmes. The parent Act forbids that, and I am not aware that it has been done in television. I do not think that it will be done in radio. However, if there were insignificant things that viewers or listeners received as a result of viewing or listening, nobody would wish to stop that.
Section 6 of the parent Act bears principally upon the point with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned. It requires that the authority must approve in advance the size of prizes. There is, therefore, that safeguard, and if members of the public or Members of Parliament feel that prizes are becoming too large and thus distorting the nature of the programmes representations can be made to the Authority. On balance, I think that it is right that it should be the Authority that judges the matter, rather than that we should attempt to lay down some figure in the Bill.
I do not feel that £25 is particularly low. There will not be the same sums involved anyway, but it would be a little arbitrary to fix a figure in the Bill. I hope, therefore, that on looking again at the terms of Section 6 of the Television Act, 1964, the hon. Gentleman might feel that it will do for radio as well, and will leave it to the Authority to ensure that the practice of giving prizes with programmes does not get out of bounds.

Mr. Golding: I am not certain that there are not any incidents under Section 3(4) of the parent Act, because there has been a tendency for the producers of programmes which offer money prizes to invite people to write in to apply to take part in the programmes.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Or to make the request by telephone.

Mr. Golding: Or to do so by telephone, as my hon. Friend says, although that is not a practice which I should normally wish to discourage.
There has been a tendency for this practice to grow and people are attracted to a programme because a prize is offered. This tendency is spreading to sporting programmes; programmes to which one

would not think it was necessary to attract viewers. People are asked to use their skill to place in order of merit goals scored and shown on television during a previous period. They are sometimes asked to watch the finish of a race and to determine from their recollection of what they saw on a previous occasion which horses were concerned in the race. There is a tendency to award prizes for things which follow to a certain extent from watching television.
There has been the introduction of advertising in sport by the back door in the B.B.C, and in the same way there has been the introduction of prizes offered to viewers of I.T.V. It could be argued that the prizes offered on sports programmes are not of significant value. I challenge the Minister when he says that we should leave this to the I.T.A. I would be happier if the I.T.A. ever made declarations of policy on such matters. If we knew what prize levels were we would be happier. We have only to look at such programmes as "Sale of the Century", "The Sky's the Limit", "Golden Shot", and so on, to realise that we are talking about the lowest level of television. The programmes are in the worst possible taste and are declining in quality for two reasons.
The first is the growth of the practice of displaying situations in which people have to make a choice which will mean them either taking away very little or a great deal. People enjoy the suspense of watching others going through the agonies of such decision-making. This is in poor taste. I am not taking a moral position on gambling, that is quite a different subject. I object to the public spectacle of people being asked to choose in this way, particularly when, because prizes are so big, there is great disappointment among those not so well off. These programmes play upon the basest instincts of those watching if not participating. They could be brought under control by reducing the level of prizes because there would not then be the same degree of disappointment and anguish. The Minister said £25 would be a lot for radio. It would be a good thing if prize levels were drastically reduced. The I.T.A. does not appear to have had any policy covering prize money.

11.15 p.m.

There is no doubt that prizes are increasing in value all the time and I fear that this provision will prove to be an escalation Clause in this respect. So long as prizes remain no higher than they are at present, all will be well, but will they not continue to increase in value, perhaps slowly, with the agreement of the Authority?

With programmes like "Golden Shot" prizes seem to get more and more valuable all the time. More is given away and this tendency feeds on itself. Once one begins to give away bigger prizes, one must, to maintain the interest of the public, add to their value. Then, to avoid giving too much away, one must increase the element of chance, and perhaps give more people blank envelopes or keys which will not open winning locks. There is great disappointment on one hand as one gives away more with the other.

It is important for us to take steps to deal with this matter. We may have to wait until 1976 to do it for television, but we can do it for radio now. More people will be watching and listening in the hope of winning a fiver or tenner, or perhaps £50 or £100. We do not want the indignity of watching people suffering the embarrassment of winning or losing in public.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: The Minister will agree that my hon. Friends have made a serious point which is worthy of careful consideration by him and his successor. It is to be hoped that their remarks will be borne in mind by the television and radio contractors.
Like many others, I have spent some time watching television and listening to the radio in the United States. I have been particularly troubled by the state of radio in that country. The programmes seem to be nothing but repetitious quiz and chat shows and they bored me to tears. My fear is that if some potential contractors get their way, we shall have the same type of shows here, and that will not make for the best use of the frequencies which we are granting them.
Many of the so-called large-scale shows which I have seen on television have in my view been cheap and shoddy and have

in no way entertained the public. Nor have they done anything to provide work for those who are concerned with providing us with entertainment.
The Minister hoped that we would have the good sense to leave the precise figures to the Authority. I do not think it does any harm for hon. Members occasionally to comment on this subject. It is to be hoped that the chairman of the I.B.A. will note our remarks especially as many of us feel that the sort of programmes that are being presented and the prizes being offered on television are distorting the whole nature of the medium.
The right hon. Gentleman says that it is difficult to be precise in putting down a figure. I suggest that his successor should look at the Betting and Gaming Acts prepared by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and his noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, in which they wrote in some very precise figures.
It is not my function to moralise. Contrary to what the Minister may sometimes believe, I am not a Calvinistic Puritan and an authoritarian. That is the province of his hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), who represents the "wee frees", whereas I represent the much more liberal attitude of the broader movement of the Church of Scotland. There is, however, a point to be taken from what my hon. Friends have said. There is no reason why we should not indicate our strong views to the right hon. Gentleman and we hope that he will communicate this point of view to the Chairman of the I.B.A. and his colleagues.

Mr. Chataway: I appreciate the strength of feeling expressed by hon. Members who have spoken. I am sure that my successor will take note of their views and that they will be heard by the Authority. In view, however, of the provision in Section 6 of the 1964 Act, and in view of the clear responsibility which the Authority has, I hope that hon. Members may feel that they have succeeded in making their point on these new Clauses and will not wish to press them.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 14

APPLICATION OF SECTION 1(4)(c) OF PRINCIPAL ACT

Section l(4)(c) of the principal Act shall not have effect in respect of local sound broadcasting.—[Mr. Golding.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Golding: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant Ferris): With the new Clause it will be convenient to take for debate Amendment No. 69, in Schedule 1, page 10, line 14, leave out from 'sound' to end of line 16.

Mr. Golding: This is in danger of becoming the late night show tonight.
My new Clause seeks to delete Section 1(4)(c) of the parent Act. In other words, it would delete
to secure a wide showing for programmes of merit".
My hon. Friends have asked me why I have tabled this proposal. It has two functions. First, as that provision goes with the interpretation in Schedule 1 to the Act, this qualification will apply to sound radio programmes. That being so, it is important tonight to ask the Minister how he envisages that the I.B.A., as it will be if the Bill is passed, will secure
wide showing for programmes of merit
in local sound radio. How will the I.B.A. do this? I have to raise the question of the failure of the I.T.A. to do this in its existing field, in which it would be easier.
Secondly, however admirable that provision is in the 1964 Act, it is basically an oddity when setting up a local radio service. The Minister continues to use the word "local" although we know that that is not what he means. He means regional-cum-national. However, he is still stuck with the word "local". So the Minister is establishing a local radio system in which the regulatory body is expected to secure a wide showing for programmes of merit. Does that mean that the regulatory body will be asked to provide that there be a wide showing for local programmes of merit?
One has only to ask the question to see what a nonsensical proposition it is. We hope that there will be very many

programmes of merit in commercial radio if commercial radio comes into being. But we hope also that they will be locally based and orientated. After all, that is the purpose and function of local radio. When we discuss the power of radio stations on a later Amendment, we shall be discussing in greater detail the importance of having local rather than national radio. I am well aware that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) differs markedly from me in this respect, but I am one of those who want local radio. I hope that local commercial radio will be local. That being so, I wonder how it can be that those local programmes of merit can be justified in having a wide showing.
Having said that, I should draw attention to the fact that in the Television Act the purpose of the particular Section, as I understand it, is to ensure that small regional programme contractors can make programmes of merit worthy of national showing and have them shown, and to make it possible for the small programme company to produce national programmes. They are not cut out by the big four or five. That Section of the Television Act is very laudable because we want the small programme companies to be able to attract actors, artists, producers and directors to work in the provinces and regions, such as Scotland and Wales, knowing that they are not cutting themselves off from a national or even an international audience. We want that to happen. We want them to be able to sell their programmes.
That is not true of local radio, for which we want the incentive to be the other way round. In the Bill as it stands, we are saying to local radio contractors, "If you make a programme of merit we shall network it for you." We are making a promise which should never be made for a local system. We are saying to the contractors, "It will pay you not to make local programmes but to make programmes with a broader appeal and a broader base, from which you can earn money from networking." Those of us who want local radio want to avoid networking as far as possible.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Whitehead: Is my hon. Friend equating merit with broad showing?

Mr. Golding: No, but I shall read what is in the Act, which refers to a wide showing for programmes of merit. It is the Act which makes the equation. The temptation will be there for companies to say to the I.B.A., "This is a programme of merit—network it." Under the Act as it stands the I.B.A. will have to do so. My hon. Friend shakes his head, but he will come round to the mystery soon. I want local production and transmission of programmes and I want to avoid networking.

Mr. Whitehead: The words "wide showing" or something equivalent to them go back to the 1954 Act, when networking as it is now envisaged in television, was largely unknown and was certainly not foreseen. Surely what the Act meant and what those drafting Section 3 of the Act intended was that a programme of merit should be seen wherever possible and a "wide showing" of it was defined in terms of the particular locality and did not have to be defined in terms of networking over the whole system.

Mr. Golding: In all the discussions in which I have been concerned and in all the speeches I have heard from my hon. Friend whenever the plight of the small regional companies has been put forward, the argument I have heard is that these companies are being denied a showing for their programmes on the network—I think the slang term in the industry is "slots"—that they are being denied these slots for their programmes and are being denied networking possibilities.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I seek a point of clarification. In seeking to remove the subsection is my hon. Friend also seeking a narrow showing for programmes of merit, or a wide showing for programmes without merit?

Mr. Golding: I want to remove the temptation, for example, to produce programmes which the companies will say, because they are of merit, deserve to be networked, that is, worthy of wide showing. I want to remove the entitlement that a programme of merit should be widely heard over commercial radio in Britain. B.B.C. Radio Sheffield is making many programmes of merit but we do not want to listen to Radio

Sheffield programmes in Stoke. We want to listen to our own programmes of merit. To a certain extent the argument is between those who are fervently attached to the doctrine of locality and those who have broader concepts. If we are attached to locality, the programmes we want to listen to are the programmes produced locally.
How is the I.B.A. to implement the provision? It is constantly reiterated that the I.T.A. is not standing up to the big four programme contractors—or big five, depending on whether we include London as one or two. It is argued that it is not securing the implementation of that part of the Act, that there is no enforcement. How is it intended that the I.B.A. will do it? Will it be by monitoring? Will it be by applications for programme contractors? Will there be mandatory programming by the I.B.A.? Are local programme contractors to be ordered to broadcast particular programmes that have been judged to have merit?

Mr. Whitehead: I cannot follow the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). As it developed it seemed to me worthy of the description Lord Palmerston gave to the Schleswig-Holstein question, a description with which the House will be familiar.
In his desperate attempts to show that a wide showing for programmes of merit meant that programmes had to be networked, my hon. Friend had recourse unsuccessfully to those arguments advanced by many of us throughout the Committee stage about the deficiencies of the networking system in television.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I am not familiar with the Schleswig-Holstein situation. I should be grateful if for the sake of the record and the information of myself and the House my hon. Friend would be more explicit on that point.

Mr. Whitehead: I fear I should be out of order if I were. I will tell my hon. Friend behind the Chair what Lord Palmerston said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has been misled, inadvertently I am sure, by the arguments many of us have used in Committee. We have said that one of the problems with


television as the I.T.A. has administered it, or failed to administer it, has been that there has been no more than a coincidental connection between networking and programmes of merit. We have said throughout that programmes have been put together under the trading of slots to which my hon. Friend referred simply with reference to what large companies could do to put in their given share and get their given reward from the system known as the network. That essentially meant five large companies. If one of those companies had a programme of unadulterated rubbish, that unadulterated rubbish could receive a network showing just as easily, and sometimes more easily, than meritorious programmes from other companies not in the pecking order of the big five.
This is not to say that we do not wish to see a wide showing of programmes of merit and that we do not wish to have a wide hearing of programmes of merit in commercial radio as in public service radio. As I understand it, Section 3 of the Act is an incantation to the companies, which has been, in the case of television, unsuccessful, to consider merit rather than other factors which sometimes have weighed much more heavily with them when preparing their programmes and schedules. The merit criterion in this sense, and the relevant Section of the Act, can be or should be invoked equally to see whether there is merit in, for instance, programmes like "Calendar" of Yorkshire Television or "A.T.V. Today" or any other programme put out as for the enforcement of merit as the criterion rather than money or "slot trading" for network programmes. I cannot see how my hon. Friend can interpret the Act as he is doing.
We have all been at some time critical of the way in which the present system works. One thing on which I congratulate my hon. Friend on new Clause 14 is that it has enabled us to put, admittedly in a somewhat tortuous form, the whole question of and degree to which networking analogous with television will be allowed in commercial sound radio. We have a system envisaged of 60 stations, which will be much harder for the Authority to control and supervise in the sense of a wide hearing for programmes of merit, which I believe is the correct

criterion, than the 15 television companies, where it has been largely unsuccessful.
Television companies largely put together their programme schedules ponderously and far in advance, with enormous capital outlay and ample opportunity for the labyrinthine bureaucracy of the Authority to examine and decide, if it wishes to decide, the meritorious nature or otherwise of the programmes. But, as the ex-pirate from Brighouse and Spenborough and others have remarked, radio is much freer and easier and faster, and there is much more instant broadcasting, so there will not be that amount of application to the Authority, which will not be able to seek out merit and insist upon it, at least in advance, although it may have something to say ex poste factoabout it in the way it has theoretically been able to do in the case of television.
How does the right hon. Gentleman envisage, as I presume he will reject new Clause 14, consideration of merit being kept in the forefront of the minds of the Authority when looking at the programmes to be produced? I hope, as much as does my hon. Friend, that these will be local programmes of merit locally produced, if there are to be some local radio stations within the regional consortia which will comprise the system. What possible way will there be for the Authority to decide these matters in advance, or for us, the public and Parliament, to scrutinise the performance of the Authority as it decides between one company and another and one set of schedules and another on the criterion of merit, which I sincerely hope is left in the Bill for commercial radio a fortiori as compared with television?

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Chataway: I find myself much more in agreement with the hon. Member for Derby North (Mr. Whitehead) than with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). I am sure the hon. Member for Derby, North's interpretation of the Act is the right one. I want to see the new system with strong local roots. I accept entirely what the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme says—that it will be expected that these stations will devote a good deal of their time to local material—but I do not think networking is inconsistent with local radio. Networking is not inconsistent


with regional television. One does not expect the best of the regional television companies to make all their own programmes, to be continually producing programmes about their own region. I am sure that there will be some networking in local radio, but I concede that it will be much less important than it is in television.
I would not want this provision taken out of the Bill. It is there for television to try to ensure that the smaller companies can get their best programmes on the network. Although networking will be much less frequent and important in radio, there could be similar circumstances in which smaller local radio stations, which would not have a dominant place in any network, would still produce a programme which they thought should have a wide showing. We should encourage the Authority to help such companies.
As to how the programme will be recognised, the Authority will have its regional offices and will have a duty to check up on the programmes. Tapes can be sent to the Authority. If a local station felt that it had produced a programme which merited wider distribution but that its attempts to get networking had been frustrated, it would have no great difficulty in bringing the matter to the attention of the Authority. And it would not be necessary for this to be done in advance of its first transmission. With radio, it is a good deal easier to slot these things in.
Therefore, I accept that, because networking will be much less important, because the nature of radio is different, this Clause will be less important in relation to radio than to television, but I would not want it deleted. That might marginally discourage the wider showing of the occasional programme produced by the local station, which would have a great appeal. If the hon. Member is not persuaded by me, I hope that he will have been persuaded by his hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North, and that he will bear carefully in mind what Palmerston said about the Schleswig-Holstein question.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 16

APPLICATION OF SECTION 3(5) OF PRINCIPAL ACT

Section 3(5) of the principal Act shall not have effect in respect of local sound broadcasting.—[Mr. Golding.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Golding: I beg to move, That the Clause be now read a Second time.
The Section in question reads:
Except with the previous approval of the Authority, there shall not be included in any programme broadcast by the Authority—
(a) any religious service or any propaganda relating to matters of a religious nature;
(b) any item, whether an advertisement or not, which gives or is designed to give publicity to the needs or objects of any association or organisation conducted for charitable or benevolent purposes."
This is an important amendment for radio, because radio is more immediate. I wish that, for this discussion, the authority on religions in the House, the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot), had been present, for two reasons. First, because many of us will remember how shocked we were to learn that the hon. Gentleman was to permit the Sermon on the Mount to be broadcast on his station at the going rate, but secondly because he has constantly drawn the Minister's attention to the different situation which exists in radio, particularly local radio, as opposed to that which obtains in television.
I do not see how a local community station can work effectively if it has to get prior approval of the Authority to include in a programme
propaganda relating to matters of a religious nature.
Anybody who knows how local radio works will think that that is a nonsense. What will happen when people telephone the radio station to say they have a bazaar coming on, or that such and such a person is to speak, or that a certain event is about to take place in the area? News is gathered in the community by the minute. Is it seriously being said that if a local radio station desired to interview a religious personage in the locality, it first would have to obtain prior permission from the Authority for such a recording to be played on the air?
Furthermore, the provisions of subsection (5)(b) of the Act appear to be restrictive on local radio. They provide that the prior approval of the Authority is required in respect of
…any item…which gives or is designed to give publicity to the needs or objects of any association or organisation conducted for charitable or benevolent purposes…".
This would appear to have some application to television but is a nonsense as applied to local radio.
Is the Department saying that before any local charitable organisation makes a statement on radio it has to be authorised by the Authority, or that if somebody is holding a jumble sale for the relief of poverty or in aid of some great disaster somebody in the radio station must telephone for prior approval?

Mr. Chataway: I take the hon. Gentleman's point on this Clause, but perhaps he overlooks the fact that the Authority will be able to give blanket approval to certain kinds of announcements. I accept what he says about announcements of local fetes, and so on. It will be within the Authority's discretion to say to stations, "This or that type of announcement has our approval, but when you move into x, y or z announcements we shall require to know about them." That is what is envisaged.

Mr. Golding: If that is envisaged and if the Authority officially issues these certificates of clearance which cover a wide area, I should be happy and I do not want to labour the point. I want only to draw attention to the fact that there is this great distinction between television and radio. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 20

ADVERTISEMENTS

The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (8) of section 7 of the principal Act:—
'Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (6) of this section, the Minister may in respect of local sound broadcasting only, and after consultation with the Authority, allow an advertiser to present and pay for a programme providing that such programme is of a musical and/or entertainment character only and is approved as such by the Authority and

providing that not more than one such programme shall be approved for broadcasting by any station on any day and provided also that the provisions of Schedule 2 to this Act shall be fully observed, and provided also that such programme shall have been especially made for broadcasting in the United Kingdom.'—[Mr. Hugh Jenkins.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time. This is in the nature of a probe. The Bill is unpopular generally, or at least there is no considerable sign of popularity at the moment. It is not popular on this side, and on the other side this is a routine carrying out of an election promise to make up for all those which have not been carried or have been reversed.
That is what the Government are seeking to do in introducing this Bill but, whether we like it or not, at this stage, unless during this part of the proceedings or on Third Reading we can defeat the Government, we find ourselves faced with something none of us want and also with something about which those who have been enthusiastic to support it speak with remarkably different voices. There are those who are keen to get in on the act and who think they will make a great deal of money out of it, and although it will not be as much a licence to print money as television, it is is sufficiently lucrative to attract their interest.
There are others, however, who take the view that at least in the first instance it will not be so, and that the Minister or the Authority might have difficulty in finding suitable contractors in some areas of the country. Among these prophets of gloom rather than doom is of course Mr. Hughie Green who believes that unless something which he calls patronage is introduced, the whole thing will be an exercise in disaster.
I do not go along with this proposal and I certainly do not go along with the distinction Mr. Green makes between patronage and sponsorship. One is another name for the same thing.
There is a case for consideration that in some areas in the first instance it might be that programmes will be of poor quality and will have no live element unless some special attempt is made to see that there is a possibility of programmes of high quality of some kind which will provide employment for


musicians and actors. The object of the new Clause is to examine this possibility.
The Clause suggests to the Government that there should be inserted into the principal Act a provision that the Minister may, in respect of local sound broadcasting programmes only, and then after consultation with the Authority, allow an advertiser to present and pay for a programme with a proviso that such a programme is of a musical or entertainment character only, and is approved as such by the Authority. It makes a further proviso that not more than one such programme shall be approved by the Authority in any day, and that the provisions of Schedule 2 of the parent Act shall be observed.

12 midnight.

Section 7(6) of the principal Act places heavy restrictions upon the nature of the advertising and the circumstances in which it may be broadcast. It says:
…nothing shall be included in any programmes broadcast by the Authority, whether in an advertisement or not, which states, suggests or implies, or could reasonably be taken to state, suggest or imply, that any part of any programme broadcast by the Authority which is not an advertisement has been supplied or suggested by any advertiser…".
Broadly, it seeks to prevent what is known in America as "sponsorship".

The Clause provides for a possible exception to that. The argument against it is that it might be regarded as the thin end of the wedge and that once one admitted the notion of sponsorship at any point, one might move into an undesirable area. However, the Clause is closely worded to ensure that there is no general exception. It provides that Schedule 2 of the principal Act shall continue to apply, and that lays down rigid provisions relating to advertisements.

Schedule 2 provides:
(1) The advertisements must be clearly distinguishable as such and recognisably separate from the rest of the programme.
That ensures that there is no sponsoring running through a programme. It goes on:
(2) Successive advertisements must be recognisably separate.
(3) Advertisements must not be arranged or presented in such a way that any separate advertisement appears to be part of a continuous feature.

Those provisions in the main Act are to remain. All that is allowed, with the consent of the Minister and the authority, is the occasional presentation of entertainment or musical programmes as special exceptions which can be provided in circumstances in which perhaps the station would not get off the ground or would fail to function profitably unless special action of this sort were taken.

I seek to get the reaction of the right hon. Gentleman to this proposal. Without some such proposal, the Minister would be unable to assist a local station in this manner, even if he wished to do so. Assuming that we are to have commercial radio, I suggest that some good may arise from a provision of this sort. Certainly no harm will result from it. I should like to hear the Minister's views.

Mr. O'Malley: I have no desire to see in this country a system of sponsorship like that which exists in some other parts of the world. In supporting the new Clause, I have to put a proposition not only to the Minister but also to my own Front Bench. Both sides of the House are wary of the dangers of sponsorship as we see it exercised in commercial broadcasting systems outside this country.
The Minister has said that he wants his commercial broadcasting system to provide a high quality programme. As a member of the Musicians Union I am interested in the employment prospects for musicians. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) wants to see opportunities for the acting profession's aspirations, which I think would be shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House who are interested in the cultural life pattern and resources of the country. We are therefore proposing this new Clause in an exploratory spirit.
The Minister faces the difficulty that we on this side of the House, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Putney and myself, in the context of this Bill are worried because of the structure which is being proposed. In spite of any aspirations he has for high quality programming, the money will not be there for some of the local commercial radio stations.
We have all seen the B.B.C. operating local radio stations. We all remember the magic figure of £50,000 which was


used and discussed at the time they were set up. I am not inordinately fond of local radio and I was never a supporter of it. I prefer viable regional radio to local radio. The fact is that those B.B.C. local radio stations have been operating on a shoestring. I am not criticising the quality or the type of their programming, but we all know the difficulties they have had. Until recently there has been little or no employment for members of the musical or acting professions. There has been a slight improvement. I do not blame anyone for the situation we found with the B.B.C. local radio stations. Anyone who looked at their finances when they were set up would realise that this sort of problem was bound to plague us.
Looking at the estimates which have been made by Mr. Hughie Green, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Putney referred, and by a number of other organisations interested in commercial radio, it is perfectly clear when we move out of the major conurbations—London, Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow—that on all the figures—I can only base my assumptions on the estimates that we have made—there are not vast sums of money available for programming.
The Minister knows that the union to which I belong—I am sure that it is right—feels that if its work on records is to be used, from which the people who do the recordings get virtually nothing—the Minister knows there are some payments into the Musicians' Union's funds which seeks to promote activities which secure live music in concerts, dances, and so on—there should be some guarantee of a reasonable level of employment for the people who make local radio, commercial or otherwise, possible. They all use recorded music to a large extent. This includes the B.B.C. as well as the type of commercial radio which the Minister is envisaging.
It is reasonable to expect some employment for musicians and actors on commercial radio in just the same way as the B.B.C. has recognised its responsibilities throughout its period of existence in specific terms during recent years.
The difficulty is that on the kind of income which many commercial radio stations will have they will be unable to provide a reasonable level of employment for actors and musicians, and this

is a threat to the standards which the Minister himself wants. Therefore, it is neither doctrinaire nor unreasonable to ask the question: if this is likely to be the case, or if there is even the possibility that this is likely to be the case, are there any ways in which we can secure opportunities for employment prospects for the professions and also a higher standard of programming than would otherwise be obtainable with the financial resources which these commercial radio stations are likely to have on the basis of the calculations which we have seen?
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney and I are not proposing that such form of patronage or sponsorship should run any further than programmes
of a musical and/or entertainment character".
I do not want any news programmes, news features or discussion programmes containing political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy to be permitted to be sponsored or patronised in this way. It would be entirely wrong if the sponsor or patron had any control over programme content. Such sponsored programmes should be produced only by station operators licensed by the I.B.A.
I want even further protection. I should regard with horror any suggestion that, for example, a Horlicks type programme should say, "This programme is brought to you by the makers of Horlicks", Nescafe or Oval tine, and that there should be interruptions in the middle of the programme reminding people of that. This is one of the worst features of sponsorship which we find abroad.
It is not unreasonable to ask the Minister—I hope that as we are on Report he has not closed his mind to this proposal—whether it would be helpful, either by this new Clause or even on the Bill as it stands, to have an arrangement whereby a programme producer produces a programme and sells it to Horlicks, Ovaltine, or some chocolate company, on the strict understanding that there is no possibility of advertisements for Horlicks or Ovaltine appearing in the middle of the programme, but that, when the programme is used, advertisements could appear at the beginning and


the end of the programme without specifically stipulating, "This programme was brought to you by permission of A, B or C."
If it were possible to bring money into a local commercial radio network in this way, it would be helpful as it would not only provide opportunities for live employment prospects, but would raise the general standards of the programmes.
I am not a highbrow—I was brought up in the dance band business—but I like a Mantovani type programme. I suppose that one has to be middle aged, or on the verge of middle age, to want that kind of entertainment nowadays. However, I do not envisage the possibility of a programme like Mantovani and his orchestra—which is really Mantovani plus a large number of expensive session musicians—on local commercial radio unless there are arrangements of the kind which I am suggesting.

12.15 a.m.

I said at the beginning that I was not asking the Minister to introduce the type of sponsorship that we have seen abroad. That kind is offensive. I do not want to hear local radio saying, "We are bringing you this programme by permission of Horlicks "or Ovaltine, Cadbury's Drinking Chocolate, or anything like that, but I do not see anything wrong, provided that it is properly controlled, in a major company which is interested in projecting its products through advertising paying for a programme, on the understanding that its advertisements, without relating to the contents of the programme at all, will appear at a particular time, that is, at the beginning and end of the programme.

The Minister may say that the new Clause goes further than that. If that is the case, I shall be happy if he will say that he will consider the matter before the Bill goes to another place. I am not putting forward my suggestion in any aggressive spirit. It may be that as the Bill stands a programme producer would be able to do what I have in mind. I have looked at the Bill, but I am not a lawyer, and I do not see any reason why what I have suggested should not be possible, because this is not sponsorship as it is understood in the Television Act, and as it is understood generally.

If the Minister cannot accept the new Clause—and I should understand if he were not able to do so, because it may go wider than that proposition which my hon. Friend and I have been discussing—I hope that in the interests of providing some opportunities for employment of the people who make the whole thing possible, and also in the interests of making it possible to provide a standard of programme which it might not otherwise be possible to get, he will find some way of doing what we want.

The situation could arise in which a half-hour programme of this type could be made available to some of the smaller local radio stations. If that were done, it could improve the quality of programme put out by the stations. It would also provide opportunities for employment in the entertainment professions, but it would not lay our system open to the worst evils of sponsorship that one finds in some countries. It is not the intention of my hon. Friend and myself to lay commercial radio open to influences of that kind. We feel that our proposal will provide a better standard of programme.

If the Minister feels unable to accept the new Clause, I hope that he will at least agree to consider the general proposition that we have put forward before the Bill goes to another place. My hon. Friend and I both dislike the Government's proposals but, if we are to have the Bill, we may as well try to get as high a standard of programming as possible. What we have suggested may provide one way of achieving that. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept the new Clause.

Mr. Richard: I must tell my hon. Friends that I could not accept the new Clause. I am sorry that I was not here to hear the whole of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) but, having discussed this point with him in the past, I think that I have got the flavour of argument that he put to the House. I am sure that I caught not merely the flavour but the whole bouquet of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley).
The great danger of sponsorship is not that if there are one or two sponsored programmes, or even one a day, it is not possible to provide adequate safeguards.


Of course one could provide those safeguards, and my hon. Friend spelled out some of the safeguards which he wished to provide. The great danger is that once the principle has been admitted in respect of one programme it is extraordinarily difficult to say that the same principle should not be admissible for more than one programme on more than one day. Once the principle has been admitted to that extent in commercial radio it is absolutely impossible to say that a similar principle, with all of the necessary safeguards, should not be admitted into television. The reasons why all parties have set their faces firmly against the idea of sponsorship in commercial radio or commercial television have been the extent to which, once sponsorship is admitted as part of the normal financing of communications, it quickly gets out of control and how abysmal an effect it has upon the quality of programmes.
Let us take the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham of "Horlick's Half Hour." Not that it would be called that—it would be "Mantovani's Half Hour", with Horlick's advertisements at the beginning and end. Let us assume that the directors of this desirable bed-time drink, which I am happy to say I do not think I have ever tasted—[Interruption.] I do not think it could be said that I have suffered from night starvation for many years.
The directors of this company would wish to put on the sort of programme which would ensure that their advertisements would be heard by the largest number of people. They would not be one stage removed from the normal commercial pressures to which advertisers are subjected. They would not even be one more stage removed than the I.B.A., and we have spent long enough tightening up the controls that the I.B.A. will be able to exercise over programme content. The general trend would be bound to be in the direction of audience maximisation, to use the ghastly jargon. The only person I know in the House and probably anywhere else who believes that not only would it be inevitable but positively desirable is the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot). If ever there was an audience maximisation man there he sits, and not even he, as far as I know, would be in favour of

sponsorship on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. O'Malley: There is really nothing wrong, provided there are proper controls, in seeking to achieve audience maximisation. This is what the B.B.C. tries to do with many of its programmes. It does not do it with all, and this is what balanced programming is all about. Both the B.B.C. and I.T.V. seek programmes which will give audience maximisation, to use that dreadful expression There is nothing wrong with that.

Mr. Richard: Nothing at all, provided it is only part of a balanced radio diet. What would be dreadfully wrong would be if all the commercial pressure was going in that direction and, frankly, once the principle of sponsorship is admitted, it seems inevitable that that would be the inexorable direction in which the whole of commercial radio would be pushed. My hon. Friend and I would be against that. I felt that I ought to tell my hon. Friends that I would be very much against the introduction of sponsorship into commercial radio in any shape or form.

Mr. Chataway: I appreciate the way in which the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) and the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) approached this matter. At the end of the day I come down on the side of the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard); it would not be right to accept, even in this limited form, the introduction of sponsorship.
There is force in the argument adduced by the hon. and learned Gentleman about the principle involved here. I agree that once one breaches that principle it is difficult to be sure that the process can be halted. The major disadvantage of sponsorship is that the advertiser has control of the programme, and I entirely agree that this is more worrying in relation to news and current affairs than to music or similar programmes. One hears the argument that we do not want sponsorship in this country and one thinks of the pressures that Ed Murrow had to combat in relation to controversial programmes about which his sponsor was not happy.
I am not sure that the sponsorship proposal contained in the new Clause


would serve the purpose which the hon. Member for Rotherham has in mind. I agree with him that we should try to ensure that the smaller stations are able to carry some more expensive programmes. It is also important that the new service should provide as much employment as it reasonably can for musicians, but it is doubtful whether, by introducing sponsorship, one would increase the amount of money available.
The advice I have had in recent years from a number of quarters is conflicting about this. A number of people qualified in these matters argue strongly that there is no reason to suppose that an advertiser will pay more for so many minutes around a chosen programme than he will pay for so many minutes on a spot advertisement. In recent years the number of sponsored programmes in other countries has declined rapidly, in part because such programmes are not acceptable to listeners and are therefore not commercially attractive.
The answer to the problems which the hon. Member for Rotherham posed lies more in the sort of cross-subsidisation arrangements we have been working in television being applied to radio. It will be for the Authority to ensure that the major companies, with their larger revenues, bear the burden of producing the more expensive programmes, and I do not see that one needs sponsorship to arrive at a situation in which the smaller programme companies can benefit from the larger resources available to some of the bigger ones.
There are a number of other features of the new Clause with which I would not be particularly happy, and some of these we discussed in Committee. For example, I would not wish to see the Minister involved in programme content in the way suggested.
As to whether the amount of sponsorship envisaged would be possible under the Television Act, 1964, the advice I have is that it would not. Section 7(6) of the Act prohibits the inclusion in any programme of anything
…which states, suggests or implies, or could reasonably be taken to state, suggest or imply, that any part of any programme broadcast by the Authority which is not an advertisement has been supplied or suggested by any advertiser…

and that would seem to more or less rule out the kind of arrangement which the hon. Member for Rotherham had in mind.

Mr. O'Malley: Section 7(6), from which the Minister has quoted, begins:
Subject to subsections (7) and (8) of this section, nothing shall be included in any programmes broadcast by the Authority, whether in an advertisement or not, which states…
and it goes on in the manner the Minister quoted. As I read that, if a programme was put on which neither stated, suggested nor implied that it had been paid for or provided by an advertiser, it would be possible to put on such a programme which had been paid for by the advertiser.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Chataway: On the face of it, it would seem that if it were done in secrecy it would be permissible under that provision. If it were secretly sponsored, I imagine that the advertiser would feel that he had not had his money's worth.

Mr. O'Malley: I am not suggesting that it should be done in secrecy. In the kind of arrangement I have suggested, in which there was an advertisement at the beginning and one at the end and no mention was made that the programme was put on by Bill Smith and Company or anyone else, I cannot see that it would prejudice the provision in Section 7(6) of the 1964 Act, because there would be nothing in the programme which stated, suggested or implied that any part of the programme which was not an advertisement had been supplied or suggested by an advertiser.

Mr. Chataway: If the answer I am giving proves to be wrong, I know that my successor will ensure that a means will be used to correct it.
I believe the position to be, however, that any advertiser can book a spot at a given time and therefore an advertiser would be at liberty, once the programme had been scheduled, to say "I want this spot at 8 o'clock. I would like three minutes then and I will want three minutes earlier as well." Therefore, if he felt strongly about the programme, I think that provided he applied in time he could get his advertisements on at both ends of it.
What would be against the spirit of the present arrangements and, I suspect, against the letter of the law would be for the advertiser to come to an arrangement with the programme company about the sort of programme to be put on. I think it would be right to say that that is about as far as the law as it stands would allow one to go towards the arrangement the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. O'Malley: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman's successor, the new Minister, can look at this in a little more detail than the right hon. Gentleman is able to do at this hour of the night. I should be grateful if he could let me know his conclusions about it.

Mr. Chataway: My hon. Friend assures me that he will be glad to do that.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The question is, of course, whether adequate safeguards are possible. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) was quite right to express fear that this might be, as he suggested and as I suggested in my speech, which he was unfortunate enough not to hear—

Mr. Richard: I will read it.

Mr. Jenkins: —regarded as the thin end of the wedge. I said why I thought that the safeguards were inadequate. All legislation exists in creating safeguards to prevent things happening which one is afraid will happen without them. As my hon. and learned Friend knows, I regard advertising as a useful servant but a very bad master. I should like the Independent Broadcasting Authority to be the recipient of the revenue so as to remove the pressure even further away from the programme contractor.
What I think would be possible would be to create as it were a package provided by an advertiser which could be provided as a block or package and could be broadcast on a number of stations without the effects which my hon. and learned Friend understandably fears. However, the Minister has suggested that the end might be achieved in another way and my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) has suggested that something of the sort might even be possible under the existing legislation.
Having regard to all that and to what the Minister has said, and to the fact that I, too, am a trifle worried about the dangers of this, much as I wish to see this service, if it has to come, being proper and reasonable, with a high standard of programme and providing some employment among musicians and performers where that employment is very necessary, if the House agrees—

Mr. O'Malley: Before my hon. Friend concludes his remarks, I should like to make clear to the House that I have similar reservations to those expressed a few moments ago by my hon. Friend about sponsorship in any form. I think he would agree that what we are doing tonight is probing to see whether we could get a high programme content without putting ourselves in any of the dangers which sponsorship in some other countries has produced.

Mr. Jenkins: I clearly have my hon. Friend's support, and that reinforces me. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Jenkins: On a point of order. I am in a little difficulty, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in relation to new Clause 21 because Amendment No. 10 in my name is to be discussed with that new Clause. Amendment No. 10 is extremely important. An undertaking concerning this was given in Committee and correspondence has passed between the Minister and myself. I believe that the Minister would share my view that a short debate upon the Amendment is very desirable. Is there anything you could say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which would make it possible to debate Amendment No. 10 tomorrow even though, owing to the absence of the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart), who was to have moved new Clause 21, it cannot be debated tonight?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): The hon. Member asks whether I have aught for his comfort to say. One cannot help but be sympathetic that his Amendment should be ditched because of the no doubt unavoidable absence of another hon. Member. Tomorrow is another day, however, and, as I would mention, Mr. Speaker's selection of Amendments is


only provisional. It could be that matters will be changed tomorrow.

New Clause 22

RECOGNITION OF CONTRACTORS
AS PUBLISHERS

In respect of local sound broadcasting, all contracts drawn up between successful applicant companies and the Authority shall recognise the companies as publishers, so that their transmissions shall be regulated only by the principal Act as amended by this Act, and by due process of law.—[Mr. Whitehead.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Whitehead: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
At this late hour, I would remind the House of a very brief remark I made on 21st December in Committee. We were then discussing the stipulations of Section 3(1) and (2) of the principal Act in so far as those subsections would apply to radio just as they apply and have applied to television. I said:
Each programme contractor in television has a carefully written document, the contract of that television company between itself and the I.T.A., and such documents will be written for radio."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 21st December, 1971; c. 506.]
I went on to say that over a period of time those contracts had formed an additional barrier to the proper development in a journalistic sense of television so far, and would form a barrier to radio in the future because of the restrictive nature of their wording.
I want to take the House briefly through the development of the rôle of the Authority as publishers. In his excellent recent study of the development of the I.T.A., Mr. Peter Black had this to say about the curious lapse by which Section 3(1)(a) of the Act was strengthened in the case of each independent programme contractor by the individual contracts which were drawn up between the I.T.A. and the programme company:
Clause 3a of the Act laid the responsibility on the Authority for ensuring that nothing was broadcast that offended against good taste or decency or was likely to encourage crime or disorder or which contains any offensive representation of or any reference to living persons'. A clause in the contracts tied the contractors to undertaking that their programmes would not 'knowingly be defamatory, seditious, blasphemous, obscene

or contain injurious falsehood or slander', etc. They also undertook to indemnify the Authority against any damages awarded against it as a result of such broadcasts.
That is an accurate quotation, certainly as far as the companies for which I worked are concerned, from the contract which each company has had with the Authority since the beginning and as redrawn in 1967.
The contracts are known within the industry as the "cowards' charter" and it is my purpose tonight in briefly moving new Clause 22 to see whether we cannot perhaps make amends for the mistake—and I think it was a mistake in the case of television—involved in the drawing up of these contracts and start from the beginning in the case of commercial radio by recognising the responsibilities of the contracting companies, as they will be the publishers of the material, particularly in the news field.
Mr. Black, in discussing the problems of the contracts which were laid upon the contracting companies, went on to say:
They had made"—
that is the contracts—
the companies responsible to the Authority. In law it could therefore be argued that the Authority was the publisher of the programmes. The reverse could also be argued: it was in the same position, as owner of the transmitters, as owners of the presses that printed newspapers. It could also be argued—and had been by Clark and Fraser when interpreting their function—that the Act did not require them to exercise day-to-day supervision over the companies. Just who, in short, was the publisher?
Reducing the question to common sense, it was obvious that Clark was not. But for the purpose of identifying someone who could be sued he had to be because, under the Act, the companies could not be. The indemnifying clause, and the 'not knowingly' undertaking, had to be in the contracts until Parliament felt able to admit that the companies that put out the programmes were run by responsible men, as responsible to the appropriate laws as newspapers.
To this day Parliament has not taken that step. Parliament has not decided that the television companies are responsible organisations which can bear the responsibilities of publishers.
I want to illustrate this point and the difficulties it raises in the journalistic function in broadcasting with my personal experience. In 1968 when I was working for a commercial television company, subject like all the others to that form


of contract I have described, we had information relating to the activities of the public relations firm Maurice Fraser and Associates and its contact with a certain other country.
We found, because of the information at our disposal, that it was possible by the day of proposed transmission to force the management consultancy firm which had been involved with Maurice Fraser and Associates and with the Greek Government, a firm called P. A. Management, to publish on the day of proposed transmission a statement accepting, because it had no alternative but to accept, the substantial truth of what we were contending in the programme, what had been discovered by way of sworn statements from previous employees of the public relations firm.
The Authority took the view and clearly will take the view in a similar situation in television—and, unless we do something about it, will do the same in radio—that those statements, although clearly true and clearly not libellous, were equally clearly defamatory. Therefore by a curious paradox we were prevented from putting on the air a programme which raised no possible question of legal action, because by the day of transmission the people who might have been litigants had been forced into the position where they had to accept broadly the truth of the allegations made against them. But because those allegations were of the nature and style that they were, the Authority took the view that it would not be within the terms of the contract of Thames Television, since the Authority and not the company was publisher, to allow this material, which was technically defamatory, on the air. So the programme was stopped. It is an extraordinary situation.

12.45 a.m.

That clearly will also be the extraordinary situation of the commercial radio companies, which we assume will also from time to time discover information precisely as a local newspaper does, which may, at the point when they propose to use it in a broadcast, be technically defamatory.

Parliament has not been prepared in the case of television to allow the con-

tractors to take the responsibilities of the publisher, subject only to the general stipulations in the Television Act, particularly Section 3, which we are to amend, but which will remain substantially the same for commercial radio. So long as that remains Parliament's attitude the local radio company will be at an absurd disadvantage compared with the newspaper. A newspaper can print such material. The Sunday Timeswas able to print the stories about Maurice Fraser and Associates and the involvement of P.A. Management more or less word for word, because there was no stipulation that it should not. All that the Sunday Times had to do was to take counsel's opinion as to whether in a court of law a successful action for libel could be brought against it. When counsel's opinion was that no such action could be sustained, the story could be printed.

But the television company, and the radio company when we get commercial radio companies, is not in that position. The radio companies will be left with the Authority able to say "We shall decide whether this or that is defamatory. You need not bother to get counsel's opinion on whether you can put it on the air."

I want to see healthy and competitive journalism developing in the local radio companies. I want them to be a stimulus and spur to the proper coverage of news and the gathering of news and free comment in the localities. I want them to emulate and surpass the achievements, in some cases considerable, of local newspapers in uncovering scandals in the localities and airing news. We all know examples of local newspapers which have crusaded, which have taken a risk, saying at the crucial moment "We will go ahead. We will print because we are sure we are right and because we think that if this goes to law we can take the rap." Unfortunately, with the so-called cowards' charter, it is impossible for the broadcasters to be in this position.

All I ask the Minister to do is to indicate that he at least appreciates the nature of the dilemma in which the television companies have been placed, and in which the commercial radio companies will be placed, and indicate too that in this respect at least we now accept that the commercial broadcasters have come of age.

Mr. Chataway: The whole House will have been very interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). Even at this time of night I found a great deal of interest in what he said. That, after goodness knows how many hours of debate on the Bill, we should be presented with an entirely novel argument is a surprise, and a very welcome one. I can well see that the experience the hon. Gentleman has had as a producer has led him to feel strongly about this point, but even if one accepted his argument and believed it was right to transfer total responsibility to the company away from the Authority, the new Clause would not achieve it. While I understand the purpose of the new Clause, it would not have the effect of making the company, and only the company, liable.
The difficulty is that it is the Authority which is the propagator. Since the Authority is transmitting the programmes, there is a situation in which the Authority is in effect publishing them. Whether that be the case or not, my advice is that the new Clause would not have the effect of transferring the responsibility. I can see that when the hon. Gentleman takes the analogy of the Press he is suggesting that in this respect the company should have the same freedom as a newspaper to say "This is our judgment; we will take the risk and publish". But the broadcasting situation is rather different.

Mr. Whitehead: The difference is the Television Act. There is to be in addition the restriction of the contract.

Mr. Chataway: How far the difficulty flows from the Act and how far from the reality of the situation, where the Authority has the ultimate responsibility and does the transmission, perhaps there will be opportunity to discuss on some further occasion. All I can say now is that I am sure my successor will be interested in the point the hon. Gentleman has raised, and obviously the hon. Gentleman is more concerned with it in relation to television than to radio. There really is no prospect of effecting the kind of change the hon. Gentleman wants to see as simply as the new Clause suggests.

Mr. Richard: I reinforce the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). I understand him to be saying that, because it is the

Authority which does the transmitting and therefore is the propagator, and because the programme companies are bound by their contracts with the Authority not to commit libel, the individual programme companies in the independent network are under a greater degree of restriction than either the B.B.C. or, indeed, any of the newspapers in Fleet Street. My hon. Friend is basing his case on three main propositions. Third I think he is saying that these restrictions do not apply to the other media of communication with which the independent network, whether television or radio, is in competition.
The Minister should consider these arguments. I do not see why an independent company should be under any greater restraint in this regard than the B.B.C. It arises only because of the difference in the structure of the two authorities and that, is not a sufficiently good reason if it seriously hampers the way in which individual producers put out programmes which they and their programme companies think are legitimate.
Therefore, although one clearly could not vote on the new Clause because, as the Minister says, it does not achieve the intention, nevertheless it is a point which I hope the new Minister will at least agree to look at. If it is a good one, perhaps he will remedy it, if not during consideration of the Bill, at some future stage. There is a simple legal tag which applies here, Ibi jus ibi remediem—"If there is a need for justice, there is a need for a remedy." I hope that the Minister will consider this.

Mr. Whitehead: Like my hon. and learned Friend, I follow at least the intention of this probing Clause. When some of his learned friends are called in to advise in the dilemma which I have described to the House, it is an absurd situation in which, after having advised on the legality of what is proposed, they have further to advise on the situation vis-à-vis the programme contract. It is that advice which limits journalists working in commercial broadcasting in a way in which none of their competitors in public service broadcasting or the Press is limited.
I hope that, at some later stage, the new Minister will look again at this stipulation. It should be removed from the


contracts which at the moment shackle commercial broadcasting. Bearing in mind what my hon. and learned Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)

Ordered,

That Mr. Secretary Whitelaw be discharged from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) and that Mr. Robert Carr be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Hawkins.]

Orders of the Day — PSYCHIATRIC PATIENTS (DRIVING LICENCES)

12.59 a.m.

Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: As is commonly the position with Adjournment debates, I wish to draw attention to one or two cases which, although limited in number and perhaps unusual, raise general principles. The treatment of psychiatric patients has been revolutionised in the last generation, but there remain some points at which the law has been left behind by current psychiatric practice. One of these concerns the grant or refusal of driving licences to psychiatric patients.
As I understand the situation, the law at present derives from Section 100 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, which was brought up to date but was not substantially altered by the Act of 1969. The Section says that an application for driving licence must include a declaration whether the applicant is suffering or has suffered from any
prescribed disability or from any other disability likely to cause the driving of a vehicle by him in pursuance of the licence to be a source of danger to the public…

If that is the case, the law lays down that
the authority shall refuse to grant the licence".
That is mandatory and is not within the discretion of the licensing authority. If the psychiatric patient already has a licence the licensing authority may in the circumstances described after inquiry revoke it, and this is discretionary and not mandatory.
The "prescribed disabilities" are defined in the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations, 1970, paragraph 22(1)(b) of which includes among the specified disabilities
mental disorder for which the applicant for the licence or as the case may be the holder of the licence is liable to be detained under the Mental Health Act, 1959, or is receiving treatment as an in-patient in a hospital or mental nursing home within the meaning of the Act.
It is evident from that interpretation of the law that a psychiatric patient who is either subject to an order under the 1959 Act or who is an in-patient—even a voluntary or informal in-patient—cannot have a driving licence at all; but if he is not subject to such an order nor is an in-patient, he may have a driving licence.
If I understand the law aright, this seems to place an undue restraint on the judgment of the doctor, or alternatively tempts the doctor to act against his own better judgment. It is the opinion of qualified psychiatrists with whom I have been in touch—and I understand this is a view widely endorsed among members of the Royal College of Psychiatrists—that in present day circumstances, with the available treatment in psychiatric cases, so sophisticated as it now is, neither the fact of being detained under the Mental Health Act, 1959, nor the fact of being an in-patient at a psychiatric hospital need necessarily be a bar against driving a motor vehicle.
The senior psychiatrist at Warn ford hospital in my constituency with whom I have been in touch has drawn my attention to cases of informal or voluntary patients who come to the hospital in their own cars and who drive them regularly without let or hindrance, and without suggestion of risk to anyone. Their cases, it seems to me, do not differ in any medical sense from those of patients subject to orders under the 1959 Act, the latter being detained for reasons quite


separate from any consideration of their fitness to drive or responsibility on the road.
The same psychiatrist has also drawn my attention to the case of a former patient of his, which will be known to the Minister, of a man now living elsewhere, but who at one time lived in my constituency, who was put under an order under the 1959 Act some years ago. He has been treated with injections of Modecate and is now leading a normal life. He is married and is in regular employment and for that employment needs to be able to drive a car, but because of the serious offence which he committed some years ago and which led to the order under the 1959 Act, both my informant and the psychiatrist now in charge of this man's case have agreed not to seek termination of the order under the 1959 Act until the slowly diminishing doses of his drug treatment can be cut out altogether without detriment to his health. This is clearly a matter which should be left in the judgment of his doctors.
All this has nothing to do with his ability to drive a car safely, which is not in question, and which is necessary for his employment and which in turn is a necessary part of his rehabilitation.
However, the licensing authority where he now lives has decided, on the basis of the information which his doctors have been statutorily obliged to supply, although it is in their judgment quite irrelevant, that he should be disqualified from driving and that the licence he already held should be withdrawn.
The man's doctors are therefore put in the potentially dangerous position of having to consider whether it would be better to end detention under the Act earlier than would be clinically desirable or else to allow patients to lose their livelihood because of regulations which those doctors regard as out of date in the light of modern psychiatric treatment. It seems to me possible—and I know that some psychiatrists fear this possibility—that if they make a wrong decision they may be liable for civil damages in the event of an accident.
Obviously, it is necessary to balance the requirements of road safety against the interests of the patient and, where there is doubt, the general safety must

be paramount. But all risk could be removed by making the licensing authority's decision discretionary instead of mandatory and ensuring that the authority should be advised by the appropriate medical officer of health in consultation with the patient's doctor or psychiatrist, subject to a third opinion in case of disagreement.
In this case there would be greater flexibility of treatment and an increase rather than a decrease of road safety because the doctor's dilemma would be removed. He would not be faced, as he is now, with the choice of either condemning the patient to unemployment when he considers that employment would be valuable for his rehabilitation, or alternatively restoring his freedom prematurely—I use the word not in terms of road safety, but in terms of the patient's recovery.
The psychiatrist at the Warneford Hospital, whom I have quoted already, has said in a letter to me:
I am personally a great believer in us psychiatrists having the means of keeping a certain grip on patients who can live functionally in the outside world and drive with perfect safety, but who might, in certain ways, misbehave or act contrary to their own best interest if the grip were removed from them. In many cases I am sure it would be impossible to justify the keeping of this grip if it involved the gross disability of not being allowed to drive".
I do not wish to press particularly the individual case which has led me to raise this subject, but I hope that the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to the argument that I have received from the psychiatrist concerned, which is clearly of general application, which reveals a certain obsolescence in the existing law, and which I believe it would be to the advantage both of psychiatric treatment and of general road safety to have removed.

1.10 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) for raising the question of the issue of driving licences to psychiatric patients. I very much appreciated his advance warning to me of some of the arguments that he would be deploying, in order that I might be able to give him a somewhat fuller reply than sometimes happens in these


late Adjournment debates. I can appreciate his concern about this matter. But, before commenting on the points which he has made, it would be helpful if I reminded the House of the general background to the law relating to disabilities and driving.
My hon. Friend is concerned that the present law operates harshly in relation to certain individuals. We are of course very conscious about the rights of the individual but, when it comes to motor cars which can be lethal weapons, there can be no inherent right for anyone to hold a driving licence. In 1971 some 7,700 people were killed on our roads and a third of a million were injured. The safety of other road users therefore has to be considered as well as the rights of the individual. When there is a conflict between the convenience—or indeed the needs—of the individual and the interests of road safety, we have a duty to see that the latter prevails.
Ever since driving licences were first issued in their present form over 40 years ago, it has been considered necessary to lay down basic rules defining those disabilities, physical or mental, which by their very nature involve risks to road safety. These disabilities are eyesight below the prescribed standard, epilepsy, liability to giddiness or fainting, and certain mental disorders or defects.
Until 1970, it had always been accepted that those who were unfortunate enough to have the particular disabilities I have mentioned—they are referred to as "bar disabilities"—should be precluded altogether from driving. But since 1970 epilepsy has ceased to be a complete bar. The law has been made more flexible in the case of epilepsy precisely because we know much more about the effects of the disability and because advances have been made in techniques to control it. That is the sort of argument that my hon. Friend was putting. In the case of epilepsy it is one which has had its effect.
Broadly, the situation now is that whilst epilepsy remains a "bar" disability, a person with epilepsy who can satisfy one of the local authorities—which at present act as agents of my right hon. Friend in his capacity as licensing authority—that he has been free from attacks whilst awake for at

least three years is able to qualify for the grant of a licence.
This relaxation of the law was arrived at only after very careful consideration by a panel of eminent consultants, under the Chairmanship of Dr. Denis Williams of the National Hospital, which recommended that, in order to avoid hardship to the individuals concerned where this was not absolutely essential in the interests of road safety, the long established bar to driving could be relaxed. At the same time, however, it was recommended—I think perfectly reasonably—that the relaxation should continue to be kept under review. To that end the panel has been re-constituted under Dr. Denis Williams' chairmanship and he and his eminent colleagues continue to give us the benefit of their advice in connection with driving and epilepsy. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the part which they have played and the invaluable help which they continue to give to us.
Epilepsy is not, of course, the issue which my hon. Friend raised, but I have mentioned it solely to demonstrate that we are ready to be flexible where it can be shown that flexibility is consistent with safety. I am therefore quite ready to accept my hon. Friend's contentions to this extent.
I agree there have been sufficiently impressive advances in psychiatrict knowledge and treatment to justify our taking a very careful look at the present bar on driving on those with mental illness who are receiving treatment in hospital or who are liable to be detained in mental illness hospitals. The terms of the present regulations were drafted some 10 years ago and since then, as my hon. Friend said, there have been signifiicant changes in the pattern of treatment of these illnesses—involving, for example, increasing movement of patients between out-patient and in-patient care and increasing sophistication in the methods of treatment.
My hon. Friend is therefore quite right when he says that we should question whether the present regulations are still valid. He was concerned, of course, with what might be described as a borderline case. I should remind him that decisions to refuse driving licences which are taken


by the agent councils are not final. Unless the person concerned admits that he has a "bar disability"—one of those I have mentioned—then they are open to challenge in the magistrates' court; and if someone with a disability considers he has been treated harshly, it is open to him to appeal to his local magistrates to review the position. The courts are subject to the same law which binds the licensing authority—and it is with the state of the law that my hon. Friend and I are particularly concerned.
It is important to recognise that the individual's position in relation to his right to drive under the law is safeguarded by the appeal provisions. My hon. Friend suggested that some people detained by orders under the Mental Health Act are detained for reasons quite separate from fitness to drive, which is a perfectly proper point. I would agree with him that a high intelligence is not required to pass the driving test provided that the candidate can learn how to obey the rules of the road. Many psychiatric patients are quite capable of doing this, but a driving test finds out only about competence to drive at the time the test is taken. It does not and cannot ensure that drivers will for ever afterwards continue to drive to the safe standards they were required to display in order to pass the test.
This, as I see it, is the heart of the matter for these with mental illness. They may be very competent in handling their vehicles and they may well know all that is necessary to be known about road safety procedures. But can we be sure that they will always behave as rationally as any mentally healthy driver whenever and wherever they drive? Unless their medical advisers can confidently answer "Yes" to that question, I suggest that we nearly always have to conclude that, in the interests of other road users, they must not normally be allowed behind the wheel.
My hon. Friend has also suggested that the present regulations may have an inhibiting effect on specialists who are called upon to make recommendations relating to the lifting of restriction orders on their patients. This is because psychiatrists may be put into the very difficult position of either having to bring detention under the Act to an end before it

is clinically desirable to do so or of having to allow their patients to risk losing their livelihood if that livelihood involves driving.
I sympathise with the dilemma, and I am willing to look for a solution to it; but I think that such cases must be very rare. When they do occur, those concerned with making recommendations are called on to weigh conflicting considerations relating to the patient's well being. If the law were expressed differently and, for instance, the responsibility of advising the licensing authority were placed entirely, as has been suggested, on the patient's medical advisers and the licensing authority's medical referee, I suggest that there would still be a dilemma. The considerations might not be the conflicting considerations relating to the particular patient's well being, but there might still be the conflict between the interests of the patient and those of road users generally.
Nevertheless, we are ready to look again at the terms of the regulations, and to do so very carefully, in the light of what my hon. Friend has said and in terms of the advances which have been made in the treatment of mental illnesses. My hon. Friend will understand that we shall not be able to do this overnight. However, I assure him that we shall most certainly consider whether any changes of the kind which he has proposed are appropriate in the circumstances.
I cannot promise that, following the review, changes will necessarily follow. Treatment in mental illness hopsitals is given for a wide range of psychiatric conditions, and it will be particularly necessary, in any review, to make sure that, in trying to improve the position of those who could be argued to be on the borderline of the existing regulations, we do not at the same time make it possible for those who are clearly unfit to drive to obtain licences. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish that to happen.
My right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for Health and Social Services and for the Home Department are also concerned in this matter. We shall, of course, have to consult them in detail and take professional advice.
Thorough consideration is bound to take time. While I cannot guarantee that there will eventually be any significant


relaxation, I can and do undertake that the terms of this bar to driving will be thoroughly reviewed. We shall do this in the context of the advent of driving licences being issued for life. In this regard, we shall need to keep a specially close watch on the balance between personal wishes and public safety. Of course, safety must come first. However, I

assure my hon. Friend that we shall try to draw the balance as fairly as we can, taking note of the considerations which he has so eloquently and properly placed before the House tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past One o'clock.